Fabric finishes
Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:44 pm
What do you folks feel about fabric finishes that are so perfect that it looks plastic? I've seen some Staggerwings with a finish that looked about 100 layers deep and no reinforcement tape showing, and others with a great finish but you could see the "pinked" edges of the tape, etc.
My personal feeling is I like to see the pinked edges. What do the judges think at some of the shows?
My personal feeling is I like to see the pinked edges. What do the judges think at some of the shows?
Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:53 pm
Tapes not visable means big weight increases for the cover job. Unless you've got empty load capability to toss away why do it? A smooth job on a Staggerwing probably added between 50 and 60 pounds to the cover job.
Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:03 am
A thicker coating of dope is more likely to crack and peel as well when it ages, especially in areas of the prop blast.
From a drag standpoint, once you get behind about the front spar (where the fabric transitions from the leading edge cover to the open bay) you won't get any advantage from a glass smooth surface anyhow.
From a drag standpoint, once you get behind about the front spar (where the fabric transitions from the leading edge cover to the open bay) you won't get any advantage from a glass smooth surface anyhow.
Re: Fabric finishes
Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:07 am
b29flteng wrote:What do you folks feel about fabric finishes that are so perfect that it looks plastic?
Interesting question. There's a certainly a fashion for it among some.
I don't like it, but if it's your aircraft, etc. etc...
And critically, I don't think it would pass the test of being a recreation of a factory configuration, and I'd be surprised if anyone in the 1930s or 40s would have done it like that - so it's an antique in modern clothes. Fine if you want to have a 'modern' scheme, but I'd hope you'd lose points in a competition respecting originality.
Cheers,
Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:15 am
Don't know about judges, but IMHO the plastic look does look good on a number of aircraft. But not all Golden Age aircraft usually sported a super fine finish. I have strip of fabric taken from a crashed Monocoupe , late 30's. the fabric weave is quite visible up (it may be linen). My former Aeronca (sold last year: http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/3646.JPG ) has Stits system and great effort was made to impart a surface which emulated the typical pre-war finish, tapes too, with weave visible much like the aforemensioned linen. Again, IMHO, a very convincing finish! Glossy but not glass.
I don't think I'd be too far off stating this restoration is probably the most original to factory standard for a KCA. It now resides in and is flown by the Western Airplane and Automobile Museum, Hood River, OR.
I don't think I'd be too far off stating this restoration is probably the most original to factory standard for a KCA. It now resides in and is flown by the Western Airplane and Automobile Museum, Hood River, OR.
Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:00 am
Charles Neely wrote:Don't know about judges, but IMHO the plastic look does look good on a number of aircraft. But not all Golden Age aircraft usually sported a super fine finish.
I'm no expert, but I don't recall ever seeing one with an original factory-fresh finish where you can't see tapes or that it is fabric covering. Seen a few modern ones - great if you want that, but surely inauthentic if it's a period scheme you are recreating?
By the way, Charles, you have a PM.
Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:49 am
I only have one small comment to make along these lines. Speaking of Wacos, the average airplane from Waco did not come with a high gloss dope finish. Waco only put enough dope on to do the job of coloring color wise. In retrospect, out 1930 Waco CRG is covered with Irish Linen and has between 60-70 coats of dope. Yes, it added weight and yes it covered the pinked edges but the finsih still looks great after 33 years with no cracking.
Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:46 am
60-70 coats of dope put on.
50-60 coats of dope sanded off.
End result, small weight gain, lots of time spent to "seal" the pinked edges.
Not what the factory did but a longer lasting, quality finish.
The difference is a working aircraft vs. a pride and joy.
Sully
50-60 coats of dope sanded off.
End result, small weight gain, lots of time spent to "seal" the pinked edges.
Not what the factory did but a longer lasting, quality finish.
The difference is a working aircraft vs. a pride and joy.
Sully
Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:41 am
You can also get around having the pinked tape lines by not taping after you rib stitch but instead completely covering the part with a second layer of light weight fabric. I've seen this technique used on several aircraft with excellent results.
Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:22 pm
Keep in mind that dope isn't very glossy unless you rub it out.
Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:57 pm
Your right about that...and Sully is right as well...wet-sanded between each coat of dope. The finished product must be hand-rubbed to bring out the shine. Had the new shiney paints been available in the 1930's then I am sure that manufacturers would have used them...alot less work then dope to make it pretty!
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:01 pm
Been life time auto, boat and aircraft painter. Did not applied 60 coats of dope on the Bellanca to get it to shine quite well after nice buffing job with fine compound and wax. I would not go with shinny finish (polyurethane or others) because it you need to do a repair you can't blend as well, you always have to tape a panel and paint it and finish quite square. Nothing is as easy to fix and maintain as dope. Use the filler dope prior applying the color to fill and smooth the surface a bit, water sand it with 400 or 600, not finer, you'll still be there in 2 years. and apply colored dope as per the manual. And reduce with proper solvent matching your ambiant temperature when you do it. End result will be semi gloss satin finish, real easy to buff, closer to vintage look and easy to repair. This is on a working airplane, not on a hangar queen.
Sure! Apply thick glass finish on a hangar queen. will shine for sure but will look like an airplane that was reworked, and not to vintage specs. An heavier for sure. No perfomances will be gained.
Alain.
Sure! Apply thick glass finish on a hangar queen. will shine for sure but will look like an airplane that was reworked, and not to vintage specs. An heavier for sure. No perfomances will be gained.
Alain.
Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:52 pm
If I was a judge, I would vote the vintage look over a high gloss anytime. Maybe that's why I'm not a judge.
Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:30 pm
Most high rollers with fat wallets want the airframe to be smooth and highly polished for what I refer to as 'EYEWASH' finish.
If you look at say a G-V it looks like polished glass, but would be much more efficient aerodynamically with some 'tooth' to the finish to break the surface tension drag.
A number of years ago Boeing took some mylar adhesive sheeting to the University of Washingtons crew facility and had them apply the film which ahd tiny triangles cut in it, on an 8 man shell. The boat performed like an unlimited hydroplane and was significantly faster out of the blocks and in the lanes. The UW took the results to the NCAA who examined it and said 'unfair advantange, disallowed' But stop and think, fish have scales and even 'smooth skinned' fish like sharks have rough skin surfaces.
Boeings standard for fastner head height is usually .000 to .005 which makes the airframe more efficient. It took McD to flatten the trailing edges of the ailerons and flaps on the MD-11 to prove the extra efficency of having the airflow coming over and under the wings mixing past the trailing edge where they determined the airframe was towing a big fuzzy rope of drag the length of the wingspan, look at the trasiling edges of the Bombardier GLOBAL EXPRESS to see where that philosophy is going.
So for the extreme amount of extra work, the pay off is at best minute, but some people are all anal about stuff like that.
If you look at say a G-V it looks like polished glass, but would be much more efficient aerodynamically with some 'tooth' to the finish to break the surface tension drag.
A number of years ago Boeing took some mylar adhesive sheeting to the University of Washingtons crew facility and had them apply the film which ahd tiny triangles cut in it, on an 8 man shell. The boat performed like an unlimited hydroplane and was significantly faster out of the blocks and in the lanes. The UW took the results to the NCAA who examined it and said 'unfair advantange, disallowed' But stop and think, fish have scales and even 'smooth skinned' fish like sharks have rough skin surfaces.
Boeings standard for fastner head height is usually .000 to .005 which makes the airframe more efficient. It took McD to flatten the trailing edges of the ailerons and flaps on the MD-11 to prove the extra efficency of having the airflow coming over and under the wings mixing past the trailing edge where they determined the airframe was towing a big fuzzy rope of drag the length of the wingspan, look at the trasiling edges of the Bombardier GLOBAL EXPRESS to see where that philosophy is going.
So for the extreme amount of extra work, the pay off is at best minute, but some people are all anal about stuff like that.