Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 850579 for rob@logan.com; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:20:35 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.237.109]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:37:47 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 05:47:54 -0700 Received: from 163.206.104.104 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:47:54 GMT From: "Ed Sikora" To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Bcc: Subject: Hysol 9339 vs 9340 Properties Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:47:54 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Here is an earlier post concerning Hysol properties: >>I was researching the properties of Hysol 9339 vs 9430 (the stuff >> >>Aircraft Spruce sells) and noted: >> >> Hysol 9339 vs 9430 >> >>Tensile Lap Shear Strength 4500 psi 4700 psi >>Peel Strength 20 lb/in 62 lb/in >>Working Time 2.5 hrs 40 min >> >> >>According to Dave Godfrey (Dexter-Hysol Aerospace Technical support >>(925-458-8278) when they formulated the 9339 to get a longer working >> >>time they got a reduced peel strength over the 9430. >> >>Seeing these numbers, for small applications (not closeout of wings >>etc) >>would not the 9430 seem to be a better candidate? >> >>-Ed Sikora >>235 (290 maybe) -Ed Sikora >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>