X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:23:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with ESMTP id 5186833 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:20:51 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=rwolf99@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.77]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id pA4KKCvg008556 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:20:12 -0400 Received: from core-dqa001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqa001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.211.193]) by mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 3B603E00008C for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:20:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Superfil X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CE69464A31E311_F00_283E44_Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 34290-STANDARD Received: from 216.207.126.66 by Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com (205.188.108.140) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:20:11 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE69464A25FC27-F00-FC4FB@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [216.207.126.66] X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:20:12 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:405366144:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294d4eb448fc004d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CE69464A31E311_F00_283E44_Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Don - Superfil is *way* easier to sand than micro. That's because it's *way* sof= ter. =20 I use Superfil in all areas except those directly in the leading edges (i.e= . where raindrops and bugs would impact the aircraft). In those areas I st= ill use micro. Also, I will not use Superfil in areas where the thickness = would be over, say, 3/16 inch. But I don't think I have many of those, rea= lly. The thickest areas I have would be near the main landing gear doors. = However, as this is in the propwash, I didn't think a glassy surface was r= equired. Besides, my Lancair buddies will never know, as the gear doors ar= e always open when parked. =20 Unless someone blabs... - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CE69464A31E311_F00_283E44_Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Don -
 
Superfil is *way* easier to sand than micro.  That's because it's= *way* softer. 
 
I use Superfil in all areas except those directly in the leading edges= (i.e. where raindrops and bugs would impact the aircraft).  In those = areas I still use micro.  Also, I will not use Superfil in areas where= the thickness would be over, say, 3/16 inch.  But I don't think I hav= e many of those, really.  The thickest areas I have would be near the = main landing gear doors.  However, as this is in the propwash, I didn'= t think a glassy surface was required.  Besides, my Lancair buddies wi= ll never know, as the gear doors are always open when parked. 
 
Unless someone blabs...
 
- Rob Wolf
----------MB_8CE69464A31E311_F00_283E44_Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com--