X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:13:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.av-mx.com ([137.118.16.57] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with ESMTP id 5183407 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:24:00 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=137.118.16.57; envelope-from=pinetownd@volcano.net Received: from DennisPC (65-174-0-104.dsl.volcano.net [65.174.0.104]) (Authenticated sender: pinetownd@volcano.net) by smtp1.av-mx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469F529202A for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 19:23:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Dennis Johnson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Superfil X-Original-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:23:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0CF7_01CC997B.C2DD1E40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0CF7_01CC997B.C2DD1E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Don, Here's a message I posted years ago on this topic: I'm using SuperFil and Aeropoxy Light, as well as micro, and have = observed a significant difference between the two commercial products. SuperFil tends to flow-out as it cures, while Aeropoxy Light doesn't. If = the surface I'm filling is level, I use SuperFil. It will flow together = as it cures, filling the pinholes that were created when I applied it. = On the other hand, SuperFil on a vertical surface will sag = significantly, leaving a low spot where you wanted filler and a high = spot downhill from it.=20 I use Aeropoxy Light on vertical surfaces because it stays put and will = not sag. But it's lack of flow-out also leaves pinholes and voids = unfilled. Of course, if your spreading technique is better than mine, = you might not have pinholes and voids to fill. SuperFil also remains workable longer than Aeropoxy Light, although both = are slow enough that I've never had a problem when mixing small batches. Dennis Johnson ------=_NextPart_000_0CF7_01CC997B.C2DD1E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Don,

Here's a message I posted years ago on this topic:

I'm using SuperFil and Aeropoxy Light, as well as micro, and have = observed=20 a significant difference between the two commercial products.

SuperFil tends to flow-out as it cures, while Aeropoxy Light = doesn't. If=20 the surface I'm filling is level, I use SuperFil. It will flow together = as it=20 cures, filling the pinholes that were created when I applied it. On the = other=20 hand, SuperFil on a vertical surface will sag significantly, leaving a = low spot=20 where you wanted filler and a high spot downhill from it.

I use Aeropoxy Light on vertical surfaces because it stays put and = will not=20 sag. But it's lack of flow-out also leaves pinholes and voids unfilled. = Of=20 course, if your spreading technique is better than mine, you might not = have=20 pinholes and voids to fill.

SuperFil also remains workable longer than Aeropoxy Light, although = both=20 are slow enough that I've never had a problem when mixing small = batches.

Dennis Johnson

------=_NextPart_000_0CF7_01CC997B.C2DD1E40--