X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:12:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with ESMTP id 5180941 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:29:44 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=kKYgWXE3sh1YR5bbiI52Wh2ufSH3Ycy8lZKH6NqBFC8= c=1 sm=0 a=zTVDa7HKqxcA:10 a=q9I24YjtHlk0Qs3T8Qd6qA==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=_0iLdFGCO_H_xqm6PrkA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=cQadOsoqhBmQtepDc10A:9 a=zGnExm8aEcaHa-PUxLYA:7 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=q9I24YjtHlk0Qs3T8Qd6qA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.69.217.19 Received: from [74.69.217.19] ([74.69.217.19:56885] helo=WilliamHP) by cdptpa-oedge03.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id D8/CD-16221-408DFAE4; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:29:08 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <6207E6DF5015418B9ABED19CACFE80BB@WilliamHP> From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Superfil X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:29:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EA_01CC9867.EF9FEA30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00EA_01CC9867.EF9FEA30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think Superfil is easier to sand and is more consistent than = microballoons. Each batch of microballoons is likely to vary in the = proportion of balloons to resin and how evenly it=E2=80=99s mixed. The = filler turns out harder or softer as a result. Mixing Superfil by weight = means the components are always the same. Based only on sanding/shaping = effort, my impression is that micro is stronger than Superfil. However, I think it=E2=80=99s best to use the stuff fresh. Maybe = there=E2=80=99s variation in the batches but out of three 3-gallon kits = used so far one stayed put until cured, similar to a dry microballoon = mix, and the others tended to slump and slide. I tend to have the stuff = around for a year or more so maybe it=E2=80=99s a shelf life issue. OTOH = the liquidity seems to allow the Superfil to penetrate the underlying = surface for a good bond. What I=E2=80=99m doing is to use a microballoon slurry as a bonding = coat for bare surfaces then putting very dry micro on top before the = slurry sets. This allows me to build up areas as needed and the dryer = micro is easier to sand. After rough sanding I use a thin layer of = Superfil. If a surface is very even to begin with I=E2=80=99d go = straight to the Superfil. I think this is a good approach but what counts is when the surfaces = flex in flight. I haven=E2=80=99t got to that point yet. -Bill Wade From: don Grabiel=20 Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:53 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Superfil Has anyone used superfil rather than the micro slurry for body work? = I've done the microslurry on my Lancair and am looking for a comparison = and whether superfil is any easier to sand than micro? Thanks. Don = G. ------=_NextPart_000_00EA_01CC9867.EF9FEA30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  I think Superfil is easier to sand and is more consistent = than=20 microballoons. Each batch of microballoons is likely to vary in the = proportion=20 of balloons to resin and how evenly it=E2=80=99s mixed. The filler turns = out harder or=20 softer as a result. Mixing Superfil by weight means the components are = always=20 the same. Based only on sanding/shaping effort, my impression is that = micro is=20 stronger than Superfil.
 
However, I think it=E2=80=99s best to use the stuff fresh. Maybe = there=E2=80=99s variation=20 in the batches but out of three 3-gallon kits used so far one stayed put = until=20 cured, similar to a dry microballoon mix, and the others tended to slump = and=20 slide. I tend to have the stuff around for a year or more so maybe = it=E2=80=99s a shelf=20 life issue. OTOH the liquidity seems to allow the Superfil to penetrate = the=20 underlying surface for a good bond.
 
  What I=E2=80=99m doing is to use a microballoon slurry as a = bonding coat for=20 bare surfaces then putting very dry micro on top before the slurry sets. = This=20 allows me to build up areas as needed and the dryer micro is easier to = sand.=20 After rough sanding I use a thin layer of Superfil. If a surface is very = even to=20 begin with I=E2=80=99d go straight to the Superfil.
 
I think this is a good approach but what counts is when the = surfaces flex=20 in flight. I haven=E2=80=99t got to that point yet.  -Bill = Wade
 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:53 PM
Subject: [LML] Superfil
 

Has anyone used superfil rather than the micro slurry for body = work? =20 I've done the microslurry on my Lancair and am looking for a comparison = and=20 whether superfil is any easier to sand than micro? =20 Thanks.    Don G.

------=_NextPart_000_00EA_01CC9867.EF9FEA30--