frets24

My Feedback: (15)

already been done, see page 3 of this thread; post #53-65. Still no word on the results though.

frets24

My Feedback: (15)

Sorry to hear of your difficulties with TF. With a lot of products the EPA and OSHA have all but destroyed what was/were great products. I get the impression that MK had to undergo numerous formulation edits to comply with ever increasing outside regulations I have also heard that most of the ARF assembly is done overseas mostly due to labor cost, but also due to OSHA regs on what glues they can use and the amount of protective clothing that must be worn while working. Ever tried to assemble a kit while wearing gloves, saftey goggles and a respirator?

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

In short, yes, monokote has changed ... and for the worse. They went to an environmentaly safe formula years ago. That ruined their quality and characteristics. Also, monokote now streches further length-wise as opposed to width-wise of the roll. This becomes noticable if you cover your ribbed wing in different directions (90 degrees) from each other. If you cover your wing length-wise of the roll, the concaves between the ribs will be more predominent (this is bad) than if you used the monokote in a width-wise direction.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I agree. I think the original MK formula had to be changed because it was doing harm to some laboratory rats or some such nonsense.

That said, I use both MK and UC. I prefer to work with UC, but I like MK's Metallic Blue. There is no doubt that MK is more difficult to work with, but it has ALWAYS been difficult to work with.

If you think it's bad now, you should have used it when it first came out in the 60's - It did not shrink. It wasn't designed to shrink. It was designed to be ironed on tightly or, used on a fully-sheeted wing.

Then, in the late 60's or early 70's, they came out with "Super MonoKote". That was the first product that had the capability of shrinking - but it was still a bear to work with. This was about the time I left the hobby and joined the service.

When I got back into it in the late 80's I used MK on my first few planes, but I kept seeing ads for 21st Century covering, so I gave it a try. I immediately fell in love with it! It went on so much easier and shrunk like crazy - unfortunately, after only one season, the clear plastic started to separate like davidgeorge's pictures.

Then, my dad turned me on to Ultracote and I never looked back - except for MK's metallic blue.

The last plane that I fully covered with MK was when I reviewed the [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display.cfm?article_id=352]Great Planes Profile-38[/link]. GP provided the covering for the review, so I used it. If you click the link and scroll down to the covering section, there are 3 short videos of the covering process.

I also did a more extensive set of videos where I covered a wing with both Ultracote AND MonoKote:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=726

So there is no real magic to using either, it's just that MK takes a different technique and a little more patience.

tony0707

HI been building and covering RC for 20 years ( mostly monocoate )about 30 plus planes to datei have come to the conclusion TODAY-it is best to use the ULTRACOAT on the open bays that require a coveringand to paint all solid surfaces possible my problem is i have a good number of planes that are 15-20 years old that i am still flying-they sit for years sometimes before i get back to them (have 23 flying ) when getting back to them the covering failure is some of my biggest headache ( corners coming up-1/2 a wing rolling off )-you will also have less problem finding those stress cracks that all film coverings have in hiding a stress crack that can lead to an airframe failure if not found-just my .02 cents after a lot of time doing this YES -monocoate has changed due to environmental protection agency requirements ENJOY BEST REGARDS TONY

davidgeorge212

test

mikegordon10

Nice test but I think yer MoneyKoat fell off before you took the picture.

davidgeorge212

uh, no. that was a picture test to see if my pictures will "blow up" for those that like that sort of thing. I just finished one of my tests with frets24 but I half to leave right now. When I get back this evening. I will post my results. That ought to keep you in suspense.

davidgeorge212

Ok, Here are my results from frets 24 samples of monokote he sent to me and Deadeye. I was waiting till I had a wing or something ready to cover but it will be a while before I build another wing for covering so I made a make shift "horizontal stabilizer" if you will. It is a piece of 3/8" balsa that I cut to shape and sanded the corners round. This is a test to see if the monokote can conform around tight rounded corners like this one. Frets 24 sent me the yellow covering only so that is the only covering in question. But to start out, I warmed up by covering with my own roll of white monokote. I cut a piece of monokote to cover the bottom side so I could get a feel for how the monokote I am use to would conform to the curves. So, the results of my white monokote are of course, went on very easy, great adhesion, nice stretch ability. When it came to stretching it around the curves it did very well, just as I suspected. I just kept tugging and ironing around the curve. Little by little, it stretched and ironed smoothly down around the curve. I then trimmed it with an x-acto blade and sealed the edge off completely.

Now, I flipped over the board to try out this "new" monokote in question. I cut the sample in half to save for another test. I already mentioned that the yellow monokote had all the same tendencies and characteristics of the monokote I use. It feels, looks, and smells the same and has the same shiny finish. I started by ironing it down smooth on the flat surface first. One thing I noted was that I had to turn up my iron ever so slightly from 1 3/4 to about 1 7/8 (on the topflight iron). To me, there was a sufficient amount of adhesive to stick the covering to the flat area of the balsa wood. I then began stretching it little by little all around the rounded curve. Again I noted to myself that this yellow covering tended to stretch just a bit more and easier than my white covering. I got the yellow covering to conform pretty much all the way around the curve to reach the other side. I had no notable “bad� tendencies (I know hard to believe by many but its true). Once the yellow covering was stretched over the curve, I trimmed the excess with an x-acto and sealed it down the seam. All in all, I still cannot figure out why anyone is having trouble with Monokote. Again, I know by now all I am doing is just blowing hot air at all of you because it’s not like this test will change any one of your minds.

davidgeorge212

More pictures of the yellow covering

mikegordon10

Well I for one am happy you went to all this trouble and I just wanted to say that by golly the next roll of covering will be coming from Hanger 9.

Ulite

My Feedback: (6)

I was having a problem with the opacity of the yellow (so called) MonoKote on my GP Stearman. The people at GP assured me there was no difference. B.S! I covered it with ultracote. Very sastified with the change.

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

Well that looks nice David! I have had problems with it stretching around curves, and the job you did is very nice! But some of my biggest problems with Monokote is doing wings, getting it to tighten after tacking it, If the stuff did tack! Problems I do not have with the Ultracote, and as I have said before I still use Econokote and find it an ease to use! I do plan on staying with the Ultracote I have no reason to stop using something that works for me, But that said I do appreciate you taking the time to post your findings!




Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness then for permission!

Speede

My Feedback: (1)

Wow what a thread! Just spent the last hour reading this thing. First thanks to all of you for your posts, second I will put in my 2 cents worth. I have been in & out of this hobby since 1980. I have used "old" MK, EK, also Coverite Silkspun, woven & film, Sig film, TowerKote & UC. I learned on MK & EK, I thought EK was easier. Silkspun & woven CR easier still but way heavier. Have been on a hiatus for 14 years. Local HS only had UC so that's what I used to finish my Kobra, couldn't believe how easy it went on! Later I had to repair a few ARF's, bought MK from TH it went on like I remembered (difficult) & possibly I had a "bad" roll that's how I ended-up trying the Sig, TK & BB films. I have since had to repair more planes & have found MK requires a different technique ie. heat settings & pulling/tacking than UC, but I still can get good results it just might take 2 tries instead of one with UC. That said I still like the colors/gloss of MK. With regards to UC seperating I have only experienced that when I tried to peel-up some using heat in order to reposition it, which means start-over. Now regarding TowerKote, I experienced the same thing as some of you did with MK, it would not stick (even to itself) or shrink a noticeable amount. I only had 1 roll of Cub yellow so I can't condem all of it yet. (Not planning on buying any either) I also understand your frustration with customer service at Hobbico, they have "bent over backwards" for me on some things & totally "blew me off" on others. I don't get it.... but the almighty dollar/bottom line seems to run large corporations anymore.
Thanks,
Speede

frets24

My Feedback: (15)

very nice David. Thanks for your post and pics. That's how I remember it going around wing tips and stabs on my first Goldberg Sr Falcon 20-25+ years ago. Didn't get quite as good of a result on the recent rebuild(pg 3). As I said in one of my earlier posts it could be ( and probably is) more of a technique issue with me and less of a product issue. Might have rushed it Memories can be fickle...like me remembering that the MK seemed easier to use when I started out than it is now.

In pic #11 of the last batch it looks like you may have a bit of a "bubble" in the lower portion of the "test stab". If so, thats one of the things I was having trouble with...keeping it stuck down and not blistering here and there when applied to sheet stock or slabs of balsa. I've been able to chase most of them away using a needle to punture the MK and then work the air out. The problem then is the new ones that pop up somewhere else. I'm thinking the iron may be too hot sometimes.

Had an "opportunity" to work with the H9 stuff. Had a tear in the bottom of my H9 Sop. Camel wing that needed repair. The stuff shrinks like crazy, maybe too much, as it pulled away from the initial overlap about a 1/4 inch leaving me to have to clean the left-behind adhesive from the edges of the repair piece. Seems much heavier and somewhat duller than the MK. It's ok, still prefer MK colors and gloss though.

davidgeorge212

You are right on that, Your yellow monokote wanted to initially buble in certain areas, more so than my white which didnt at all, but after running the iron over them slowly and working them out to the edges, there were very few if any hints of a bubleing left. The way I get my best results is if I just take my time wether it be with monokote, 21st century Coverite, or any other type of covering. The more I rush, the more mistakes I tend to make. I think all coverings work best if you heat them and stretch them slowly rather than all at once.

bullseye000

It looks like you ironed the covering directly to the wood. When I cover I only iron the covering down around the perimeter then shrink with a heat gun in the middle. I like the covering to float over the piece so the wood grain or any little dents, dings or boogers underneath the covering aren't visible. Wing tips are still ok but any large areas that are shrunk with out ironing directly into the wood just don't shrink enough to get the wrinkles out. If I remember correctly UC has the color built into the substrate and MK has a clear substrate with the color and adhesive applied to the clear substrate. I believe the substrate is what has changed. I have compared 2 samples of red and the old roll would crinkle like a cellophane candy wrapper while the new MK has a softer more rubbery feel to it. It does stretch more in one direction than another. I just completed a small 40 in plane and I had to continually pull the covering up and restick it until it was as tight and wrinkle free as I could get it. When it came time to shrink the MK would relax and large wrinkles would form. As it cooled the wrinkles seemed to go away. The old version the would just shrink and you could use the heat gun to get some of the big wrinkles out. I'm finding that harder to do with the latest rolls I've bought. White, black and red seem to be the worse for me. As I posted earlier I did a project for a local who dropped off the face of the earth. When I was finished the covering was nice and tight. Over the last 18 months large wrinkles have formed and I can't shrink them out with a heat gun. I guess I will go over the MK and iron into the wood. I also talked to Charlie Bauer who was the product manager at Top Flite for years. He said the formulation has changed and he has had some issues putting the stuff on. I did try letting the rolls de-gas before covering my last project. It seemed to go ok but I still would like to see the stuff stretch more consistently and more than it does now.

davidgeorge212

I have heard of both ways to iron down to big balsa planks. A builder I know taught me that method of just sealing around the perimiter and using a heat gun to shrink the middle down, I have never tried it yet though. He usually sands all of his balsa planked planes to 600 grit sand paper and will iron it all down or just around the outside and shrink it in the middle depending on what the customer wants. That way if it gets all ironed down it is still gives you a very smooth surface. I, on the other hand, did not bother sanding this peice of balsa wood at all for this test so I know it shows all the grain through the covering. I mainly just wanted to see if it would stretch around tight rounded curves which it did and I had no problems with it. I dont know much about the chemical makups of these coverings but I would say they both have a clear cellophane top and a colored adhesive on the back of them. With my experience using both coverings, if you stick the adhesive sides together and pull them back apart, both coverings will pull the adhesive color part off and leave the clear see-through cellophane left.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

So you did not install the covering by the MK recommended method? Which is to tack in the corners then along at certain points then gradually other points, then SHRINK as needed, etc. This would indeed imply that the covering has changed and requires different techniques (possibly cannot shrink it) for installation. Now thinking that you cannot iron down certain areas of the covering because there is nothing to iron to behind the covering this would cause some issues with the covering and this seems to be the case I am having and maybe others as well. You did mention you notice possible bubbles in the fellow's yellow.

I cut a small piece about 4x6 inches of white MK to put on the side of one of my Revolvers and you are limited to due to cut-outs for your ironing surface on the side of many fuselages just like the Revolver. You simply have no choice but to stretch the material and hope for the best when you set forth to shrink it.

Now what I found is if I cut a piece and put it on a solid surface area and iron out to the corners as you did in your project I can get reasonable results although not the same when using the recommended install procedures from MK (just throw in trash can when done and try another piece). I now realize more that there are differences due to the fact that I can cover easily over more open surfaces with my metallic plum MK but not my white MK.

Hmmmm.....because of your method of installation ("I have never tried it yet though" ...sealing the perimeter and shrinking as by manufacturer's installation instructions) you have convinced me more there are issues that MK has not addressed for the consumer and ....the saga continues [X(]

davidgeorge212

I dont cover in that method where you seal the perimeter and shrink the middle (over solid balsa structure), I said I just heard about that way. I said I do tack it in the certain areas and then go back and tack it everywhere inbetween (over open bay wings). I have never built a plane with solid wings yet. After it is tacked all the way around I shrink it down with a heat gun and iron it down to the ribs. I dont read the instructions on monokote so I dont know how they say to install it. All I know is my meathod seems to work and thats good enough for me.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I agree, if your method works then that is what you need to use. I think some of the "new" MK coverings are going to be a challenge on certain surfaces with limited underlying surface area due to sub par adhesion and shrinkage. The covering can do some strange stuff while initially stretching. I found that if I take the covering and heat it slightly overall it seems to apply better, but not always.

It seems you are getting the results you desire. I know with my metallic plum it went on like a dream on most all the surfaces I put it on even around some very tricky areas. The "new" white, however is another story entirely. It is some of the worse covering I have seen in my short time working with RC. You can put it on a flat surface and iron it down then hold the block up and sometimes the covering falls to the floor [X(] I did buy two rolls of blue and red for my Revolver and both of those are working extremely well and am very satisified with it.

It is evidently something wrong with this white and I have even found that some parts of the roll are ok and I believe it has to do with the adhesion and shrinkability and when this was made something in the process failed. Some of it does not shrink no matter what you do. You can use mild heat, high heat, whatever you want and nothing occurs at all.

I probably could use UC for what I do white and MK for the other colors that UC does not match well as I am not against MK just want to make sure the product is doing what it should do.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

[sm=thumbup.gif]

saterry01

My Feedback: (1)

As with all products, there are folks who are Pro, and others who are Con. That was never really my issue.
Mine was one of frustration with a product that did not behave like it did years ago. I used to use a lot of MK and got
a lot of rave reviews of my covering jobs by other club members. After being out of the hobby for a number of years, my
return to it was wth ARF's, and no building, and only patching with covering. When doing what I thought was going to be an EZ
recover job, I found the new MK hard to deal with compared to past jobs.Again, the purpose of the thread, to investigate
if there has been a change. From all the posts, there have been a few who are "in the know" who have posted that
there indeed have been some changes. IMO not to the better, and that opinion has been shared by many here.

That being said, it seems others are doing well with MK, others are not. I appreciate the pics posted by David George,
it looks like you are having good results. One of the big problems I have with using new MK, is the great effort needed
to get it to stretch around edges, and the hard pulling required. The older stuff didn't act quite that way. It was easier to
get it to pull, or "mould" over curves, etc. Another issue is getting it taught and smooth over a open structure in the evening, and waking
up to extreme wrinkles. Yes, most of it can be worked out, sometimes not. But why should wepay good money for a product
that makes for double or triple work. I used to do a covering job once, get it all tight, and good looking, and it would stay
that way for quite a long time. Now I cannot even get it off the bench before have to "tweak it"

Again, the issue is, was it changed. The answer has been "yes it has" over and over. What I have left I guess can be used
as trim. Using trim solvent it seems to stick very well, and smooth. Other than that, to me it is too difficult to work with now.
One issue that makes it very hard with the new stuff. I had an injury to my hand, and my ability to pull is limited. I could work
with the old easily. This is why the new shows to me that it is a different animal.

Of course, these are my results, and my opinions, if you like the stuff, then that is great.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I've used the stretch and seal method before. I read it in instructions somewhere and I was doing it before the Internet was available. It worked fine for me at the time but I don't know if I could do it that way anymore as I have arthritis in my hands now?

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

w8ye, Sorry about your arthritis! I do know what you are going through, I had my right hand crushed in a machine at a steel plant about 20 years ago. It took about 5 years to where it did not hurt all the time and in the last two years it has got back to hurting and can not even open a jar anymore, So when I cover a plane once is enough per plane! Thats also one of the reasons I switched from Monokote, good luck to you!