X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:53:46 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5180145@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <grabiel71@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2)
  with ESMTPS id 5179764 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:00:21 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=grabiel71@gmail.com
Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so484712bkb.2
        for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.15.209 with SMTP id l17mr6858455bka.39.1320076784822; Mon,
 31 Oct 2011 08:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.39.79 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.39.79 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:59:44 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <CAPASNH_ffdEraG8Cq-13OtZnhdPJpoKeYRzWYzsm7=_5FKE3VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Superfil
From: don Grabiel <grabiel71@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: LML <lml@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c3706d5e85604b09a53a1

--0015174c3706d5e85604b09a53a1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.

--0015174c3706d5e85604b09a53a1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>Has anyone used superfil rather than the micro slurry for body work?=A0 =
I&#39;ve done the microslurry on my Lancair and am looking for a comparison=
 and whether superfil is any easier to sand than micro?=A0 Thanks.=A0=A0=A0=
 Don G.</p>


--0015174c3706d5e85604b09a53a1--