Brodak dope

Is everyone so far generally pleased with Brodak dope? I haven't tried it myself- LHS(s) only carry SIG and AG or I have to go to the local full size aircraft supply house and buy Randolph in gallons- or mail order Brodak.
Trying to get LHS to think about carrying something "new" (to them) is rather difficult.

Hello Jake, Take it from one satisfied customer, You cant find a better material for finishing our models!!! The stuff is easy to use, has a fairly quick dry time and sands cleanly. Since it is heavyly pigmented, it has pretty good coverage. It is also very easy to repair and polishes out like glass.(Check out my Still Stuka Stunt on a prior thread.) As Windy says " It'll get you that front row finish" Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks.

Brodak dope?

If you intend to use dope for your finishing, it's the only sane chioce.

Windy worked with J.B. on the development and as one of the best finishers in the history of the hobby, he knows what hes doing.

Unless you already have a system of your own worked out, there are only two things that I would suggest:

1) Buy it.
2) Use it.

Brodak dope is great and I recommend it. Sig dope is also fine. They are both made by Randolph, but there are some differences. I have had no compatability problems so far, but I suggest you test everything first.

I have been pleasantly surprised at the light weight of Brodak dope finishes. Since coming back to this hobby, I have discovered that Brodak dope finishes lighter than my old acryllic laquer work.

Here in Virginia, I have also learned to use a lot of retarder because of the humidity. Brodak dope dries very fast and will really blush if you don't slow it down a little.

Enjoy

To be honest, I have had nothing but trouble with SIG dope and would never use it again, no matter who made it.

I've never had any problem with Sig Dope-been using it for eleven years now. Start with their nitrate, Then some butyrate with talc, coupla' coats of Polar Grey then the finish coat and another coupla' coats of butyrate clear. The Sig folks featured Mike Greb's and my Magnums on their Products Calendar around '96 so I gotta' throw an attaboy their way! Best regards,

>I've never had any problem with Sig Dope-been using it for
>eleven years now. Start with their nitrate, Then some
>butyrate with talc, coupla' coats of Polar Grey then the
>finish coat and another coupla' coats of butyrate clear. The
>Sig folks featured Mike Greb's and my Magnums on their
>Products Calendar around '96 so I gotta' throw an attaboy
>their way! Best regards,

I did- several times, didn't work...

Jake,

I have not had, ever, any problems using Sig dope products that were not attributable to technique and I have been using it since the sixties. Seems to me you just like to blame the product rather than learn to apply it.

I use it both for my hobby (model airplanes- they have been in the front row at the Nats) and professionally (full-scale antique, classic, and current airplanes- several of which have been grand champions at the EAA convention at Oshkosh).

You keep stating these absolutes..."I tried it and it did'nt work therefore it is no good". Just because you refuse to get your technique up to speed for an excellent product like Sig does'nt mean that it is not a good product.

All manufacturers have had to formulate or re-formulate their paint/dope products to meet current EPA/AQMD standards and most of them are still excellent products. Brodak, Randolph, and Sig are three of the best.

Excuse me, but you are WRONG. How many times would you like me to refinish an ariframe? I have done a couple three times with the exact same results. I had ZERO problems with other products. If the BLEEP works for you that is really happy and special and I'll give ya' a big hug to go along with it. Under my conditions and with the equipment and all I have to deal with, it DOESN'T. I never once said for anyone else not to use it, I just said I never would again. And my techniques ARE "up to speed" FYI.

>Excuse me, but you are WRONG. How many times would you like
>me to refinish an ariframe? I have done a couple three times
>with the exact same results. I had ZERO problems with other
>products. If the BLEEP works for you that is really happy
>and special and I'll give ya' a big hug to go along with it.
>Under my conditions and with the equipment and all I have to
>deal with, it DOESN'T. I never once said for anyone else not
>to use it, I just said I never would again. And my
>techniques ARE "up to speed" FYI.
>
>Jake

If you would do it correctly in the first place you would only have to finish the airframe once. Doing it over three times using the same technique seems like a plan to fail, not to mention your being unwilling to learn. All the failures would seem to indicate that your techniques are NOT up to speed, when so many of the rest of us are not having the problems that you are having.

If you have equipment problems then fix them...

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

I had used Sig dope for many years with no problems. Then in 1999, I built a Macaluso Tomcat finished with Sig and in 2001 my P-40 was also finish in Sig. Both planes and adhesion problems with paint lifting and fillets bubbling and lifting. As I understand it, Sig reformulated it dope to passify enviromentalist. This new improved, enviroment friendly product has its shortcommings and is nowhere near as good as the old product. Brodak, on the other hand has stepped up to the plate and delivered a quality dope that is as good as everyone says. Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

>I had used Sig dope for many years with no problems. Then in
>1999, I built a Macaluso Tomcat finished with Sig and in
>2001 my P-40 was also finish in Sig. Both planes and
>adhesion problems with paint lifting and fillets bubbling
>and lifting. As I understand it, Sig reformulated it dope to
>passify enviromentalist. This new improved, enviroment
>friendly product has its shortcommings and is nowhere near
>as good as the old product. Brodak, on the other hand has
>stepped up to the plate and delivered a quality dope that is
>as good as everyone says. Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

Oh, I bow down to you Sir. This is the exact same problem(s) I had- I don't care what I did, or how many times; it still either peeled in spots or bubbled (sometimes weeks or months after).
Brodak here I come, the Sig gets dumped on the woodpile and burned.

>Oh, I bow down to you Sir. This is the exact same problem(s)
>I had- I don't care what I did, or how many times; it still
>either peeled in spots or bubbled (sometimes weeks or months
>after).
>Brodak here I come, the Sig gets dumped on the woodpile and
>burned.
>
>Jake

If it peeled or bubbled it was the fault of the substrate upon which it was applied: either the substrate was incompatible with the dope; or it was not clean; or you let it dry for too long without re-softening the old surface; or you failed to scuff the surface prior to applying the new coats; or, if using silver as the under/fill coats, overloaded the clear with aluminum pigment.

The most likely is that the substrate was not clean and it was not scuffed. As a professional restorer of full-scale antique/classic aircraft I see a lot of people who invent their own "techniques" for prepping/applying dope finishes rather than using proven methods. They too blame the product that seems to work just fine for those using correct methods.

I know that Brodak dope is produced by Randolph. Early on I was privileged to sit in on a quality control/evaluation session with Winfred and the engineers at Randolph. An example that I can verify is that Randolph makes many, many BLACK paints. Different applications call for different composition. The black used on helicopter rotors, for example, is significantly more durable than the Brodak product....it's also almost impossible to raise a shine on. General aviation products have UV blockers and a greater wear resistance than the Brodak product. It kind of rubbed the engineers the wrong way when Win explained that he wanted high pigment (for good coverage) and very little else....they finally seemed to understand when he drug one of his planes by.
Randolph makes most of their product to "mil. spec."
My understanding is that their thinner and clear are the only butyl products that are the same as general aviation applications.
I would assume that the same high quality of the Randolph products exists in their new facility.

See Ya

>I know that Brodak dope is produced by Randolph. Early on I
>was privileged to sit in on a quality control/evaluation
>session with Winfred and the engineers at Randolph. An
>example that I can verify is that Randolph makes many, many
>BLACK paints. Different applications call for different
>composition. The black used on helicopter rotors, for
>example, is significantly more durable than the Brodak
>product....it's also almost impossible to raise a shine on.
>General aviation products have UV blockers and a greater
>wear resistance than the Brodak product. It kind of rubbed
>the engineers the wrong way when Win explained that he
>wanted high pigment (for good coverage) and very little
>else....they finally seemed to understand when he drug one
>of his planes by.
>Randolph makes most of their product to "mil. spec."
>My understanding is that their thinner and clear are the
>only butyl products that are the same as general aviation
>applications.
>I would assume that the same high quality of the Randolph
>products exists in their new facility.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Rich, the black used on helicopter blades is polyurethane and is formulated to be extremely impact and erosion resistant in order to stand up to the service seen by the blades. Dope is not used on helicopter blades for a variety of reasons. The polyurethane used in general aviation applications does have UV blockers, but so does the polyurethane used in the automotive refinish field.

OK...All this negative talk about SIG PAINT you guys are scaring the CR_P out of me. Today I had to take off work for personal business in the morning, but in the afternoon I had planned to paint my plane using "SIG PAINT" or "SIN PAINT". Now I've never spray painted before so I don't know SH_T about it. Plane has been primed for two weeks and sanded. I washed the plane off with just water and when it was dry I went back and washed it off with rubbing alcohol "TWICE". I bit the bullet mixed the paint 1/2 paint and 1/2 thinner and sprayed a really light coat and waited about 15 minutes. Then I sprayed a full coverage coat and then I waited another 15 minutes. Then I sprayed a coat of 80% thinner and 20% paint. Bottom line it came out great with no runs. So far I'm happy as a pig in SH_T. Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow morning and it will be all shriveled up, if so, I'll not sand it off, I'll stomp it into a million pieces and start building something else!!!!
Yeah, My first spray job and I'm wound a little too tight!!!!

Hey Greg,

I thin my Sig dope 50/50. Sprays well this way. On my last color coats & clear coats I use Dave Browns Flex-All Plasticizer. Helps keep the fillets from bubbling up.
I have been guilty of not cleaning fillets well enough in the past. Bill Byles has some good ideas.
Finish your plane up, start flying it & start building your next one.
Good luck.

Bill,
You never invited me out for dinner.
Crushed
Gordy

I can't believe they didn't invite Jake.

>I can't believe they didn't invite Jake.
>
>Steve

They know better.

>Bill,
>You never invited me out for dinner.
>Crushed
>Gordy

Gordy, O.K., O.K., I'll meet you halfway. Say, in Mesquite, Nevada at the Golden Arches. If you bring Sandy then I'll meet you in Las Vegas and we'll go to a real eatery and have steak! Just be sure to avoid Battle Mountain...no need for a rerun of the freeway happening.

Brodaks, Sig, Aero Gloss (the 50s-60s formulation), Randolph, even old Testors...all work pretty well.

Heres another two pesos worth...

How well most of these finishing methods work really has a great deal to do with that LEVEL of result the modeler is looking to achieve.

I've used plenty of Sig and got good results. My GOOD was based on the fact that my planes looked colorful, had a workman like finish, were fuelproof and stayed that way for as long as I needed them to (A season or two.).

Once I began to become really finikey about weight, coverage, ease of use, compatability and began measuring my finishes against those of the experts, I needed to find and master better finishing techniques and materials.

I like using auto finishing materials combined with dope, so Brodak is what works best for me. Also, since switching to Brodak I have completely forgotten about lifting at the fillets or other kinds of bubbling. The thinner is WAY better than Sig's, as is general coverage, drying speed, color choice and customer support.

I really don't have much interest in starting all over again and learning a new system for finishing, when good old dope is so easy to use and gets me where I need to be. It's pertty quick, almost foolproof and if cared for, lasts almost forever.

If someone wants to paint a Ringmaster thats only going to last a few flights or a few weeks, what he uses for paint won't make much difference.

On the other hand if you spend 600 hours on a stunt masterpiece, you'll probably be very picky about how you apply your finish and what you use to do the job.

Whatever you guys deside to paint with. Take time to really learn the system and stick with it for a while. There are lots of "tricks' and techniques that need to be mastered and unfortunately, we usually learn by making a mistakes and creating disasters. Thats just the way it works.

Way back in the 80's, I built a profile ship that I painted with epoxy from a spray can. Unfortunately the paint didnt completely cure. All season long, everyone who launched that dang thing left fingerprints in that stupid plane. LOL!!! I should have sent it to the FBI!!! My flying buddies were very releived when I crashed "Stickey" and brought out a new plane!

Goodnight

>Brodaks, Sig, Aero Gloss (the 50s-60s formulation), Randolph, even old Testors...all work pretty well. >
>Currell

Ya left out Lee brand.

Jake...
I re-read your question, and, yes, most are happy with Brodak dope.

See Ya

Let's get back to the real purpose of the forum and try to figure out cause and effect. Here's my theory: the newer "clean air" formulations are less volatile and therfore don't melt into the preceding coat as much. This makes a clean, toothed surface more important to achieve. Once I painted a closet right after sanding the spackle. Didn't bother to sweep the dust off the ceiling. Days later a big sheet of latex came off the ceiling. The surface of the drywall dry as a bone! The invisibly thin layer of dust had masked the surface as effectively as tape. Wouldn't you have thought the dust would get pulled into the soaking wet roller? But the roller had not even wet the paper surface of the drywall. This has nothing do to with dope, of course, just trying to make a point about being surprised about things that you think you have totally nailed. Don

At the risk of becoming a target for "the slings and arrows of anonymous archers" (Bob Hunt's apt description of internet flamers who hide behind screen names), I would like to correct one misconception about Sig Dope that seems to be growing every year.

common quotes:
"As I understand it, Sig reformulated its dope to pacify enviromentalists." or "the newer "clean air" formulations", etc., etc.

SIG DOPE WAS NEVER CHANGED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS. PERIOD!

A major change to all butyrate products produced in this country occured around 1990 when the Eastman company changed the raw butyrate resin that ALL dope formulators use to make their products. I was told that that change was for environmental reasons. Eastman is the only company in the US that makes this base butyrate resin, and ALL dope formulators (including Sig, Randolph, Cooper, etc.) start with it.
To the base resin, they add their own proprietary blends of additives (thinners, retarders, plasticizers, etc.)

The Sig dope on the market now is the same as it was over ten years ago. It is not the same as the Sig dope from 20 years ago. No brand is. It is still a very popular product that will produce a "front row" finish when used properly.

Mike Gretz
Sig Mfg Co

Bravo.ike! And thanks for clearing that up!

See Ya

"ALL dope formulators (including Sig, Randolph, Cooper, etc.) start with it.
To the base resin, they add their own proprietary blends of additives (thinners, retarders, plasticizers, etc.)"

Mike,

Thanks for confirming what I already had long been told and suspected. They ARE different because no matter what the base is, it is the additives that are the key to it all. I think that the thinner and retarder is a VERY crucial element, especially from what I have seen in the Sig dope.

John Kelinske
Houston, Texas
(just so you don't confuse me with one of those "internet flamers who hide behind a screen name").

>At the risk of becoming a target for "the slings and arrows
>of anonymous archers" (Bob Hunt's apt description of
>internet flamers who hide behind screen names)

How can anyone hide behind their chosen "handle" or "screen names" as you call it..... everyone has a user profile easily available to all members of the forum. Here is yours, apparently you have no hobby:

Name-Mike Gretz 

Group-normal 

ICQ 

AOL-IM 

Avatar
Image 

Gender-Male 

City-Montezuma 

State-Iowa 

Country-US 

Homepage- 

Hobby- 

Comment-

>>At the risk of becoming a target for "the slings and arrows
>>of anonymous archers" (Bob Hunt's apt description of
>>internet flamers who hide behind screen names)
>
>How can anyone hide behind their chosen "handle" or "screen
>names" as you call it..... everyone has a user profile
>easily available to all members of the forum. Here is yours,
>apparently you have no hobby:
>
>
>Name-Mike Gretz 
---------------------------------------------------------------

Donald, you evidently don't know who Mike Gretz is. He is an employee if SIG and designed The Twister, the 1/2a Skyray, The Akromaster, The Mustang Stunter, and a whole slew of R/C airplanes. He won 1st in scale at the AMA nats in 1975,76,78, and 79 with his own design, the Zlin Akrobat.

I would say that he has a hobby.

...Donald, you evidently don't know who Mike Gretz is. He is an employee if SIG and designed The Twister, the 1/2a Skyray, The Akromaster, The Mustang Stunter, and a whole slew of R/C airplanes. He won 1st in scale at the AMA nats in 1975,76,78, and 79 with his own design, the Zlin Akrobat.
>I would say that he has a hobby.

Mike, thank you for those designs. I currently have a Skyray, Skyray 35 and Akromaster in my hangar, and another Akromaster on the workbench.

George C. Bain

Here we go. I knew I should have stayed out of this. Guess I should have worn my "arrow" shirt today. LOL

(remember that old joke; "Who invented the Arrow shirt?" ...
answer: "General Custer" --- I always liked that one.)

Dee,
Wow! You came up with my professional history faster than I could have. And with the correct dates. Thanks.

But don't be too impressed. I'm just a old time modeler, like yourself, who was lucky enough to get a job he really likes. Just ask Larry Renger or Mikey Pratt. It's fun. Most of the time.

However, sometimes I think I got this job about 40 years too late. Wouldn't it have been great to design models for a living in the 1950s-60s? Back when there was a lot of C/L work to do, and the parts didn't even have to fit very well (evidence Berkeley), and you didn't need to write a 24 page photo illustrated instruction book, and real "modelers" were your customers, and they didn't call up everyday to ask if it's all right to put a OS 1.20 and a video camera in their Sig Kadet LT-40, etc., etc., etc.

By the way, in this day and age of ARFs and RTFs, I figure "old time modeler" is the highest praise you can give anyone in this hobby.

A salute to all the "old time modelers" out there.

Best regards,
Mike G.

>Here we go. I knew I should have stayed out of this. Guess
>I should have worn my "arrow" shirt today. LOL
>
>(remember that old joke; "Who invented the Arrow shirt?" ...
>answer: "General Custer" --- I always liked that one.)
>
Mike,

Welcome to this world of of near anomymous flame throwers. You should rest assured that anyone who has been in this hobby for any length of time recognizes you, your name, your accomplishments and your contributions to the hobby. The post from injunnut (nee: deleted) from Cocoa, FL, was ill-informed and at best, was in poor taste.

De left out the fact that you wrote the Control Line Scale column in Model Aviation for a period of time.

Bill If it works for you PLEASE tell us what you do.

Brodak gives me fits. Painting gives me fits.

Please help

Bill, since you're handy- have you heard of residue from silica base sandpaper causing dope to "bridge" as in the area of fillets? I'm not sure it does, but as a precaution always cleaned up with "prepsol" just in case. Just curious. Best regards,

ME too

scott(good question Dale)Riese

Bill,
I just bought a load of Sig for my latest creations, is there a good technique to follow to make SURE I have good adhesion and no bubbles.
I remember as a kid people having these problems, it must not be new. What are the precautions?
Chris...

>Bill,
>I just bought a load of Sig for my latest creations, is
>there a good technique to follow to make SURE I have good
>adhesion and no bubbles.
>I remember as a kid people having these problems, it must
>not be new. What are the precautions?
>Chris...

Chris, let's get together maybe for dinner or something and we can talk about these things.

>Bill, since you're handy- have you heard of residue from
>silica base sandpaper causing dope to "bridge" as in the
>area of fillets? I'm not sure it does, but as a precaution
>always cleaned up with "prepsol" just in case. Just curious.
>Best regards,

Dale, the residue from most any kind of sandpaper can cause a reduction in adhesion. Also, the oils and salts from your hands, if not cleaned off prior to the application of the next coat, can cause a significant reduction in intercoat adhesion.

It is always a good idea to use cleaners on the surfaces to be painted just prior to applying the next coat. There are typically two kinds of contamination encountered on the surfaces to be painted: 1) Water soluble contaminants (salts, soluble oils, etc.), and these are cleaned off using just plain water; 2) Non-water soluble contaminants ( oils, mist from WD-40, other airborne oil and paraffin-based contaminants, etc.) and these are cleaned up using a paint cleaning solvent such as Sikkens M600, Ditzler DX330, or Dupont Prepsol solvents. I use the paint cleaning solvent first, then clean with water. There is a reason for that sequence.

The way to clean the surface, both for the water and the solvent is to get one rag wet (not just damp, but wet almost to the point of dripping) with the water or the solvent (whichever you are using at this point) and have the clean, dry rag in the other hand. Wipe only one wing panel at a time (say, the outboard upper panel) with the wet rag, wetting the surface thoroughly. Immediately wipe the panel dry with the dry rag, turning the rag as needed to keep a clean rag surface to the panel. Do not let the solvent dry prior to wiping or you will be back to where you started. Change rags frequently.

When you go to clean the surface to be painted, first of all use only clean rags. I buy new, bleached, tee-shirt material which are odd-sized scraps from the manufacture of tee-shirts. I have a 50 lb. box of the rags which cost me about $100.00 and will last for all of the models that I will ever build and then some. Do not use red shop towels (or any other color shop towels, for that matter) because they are intended to be used for oil cleanup in auto shops and machine shops and will just not be clean enough. I also do not use paper towels as they frequently have a binder that is soluble in paint cleaning solvents and if you encounter that problem there will be no doubt in your mind that you have big trouble. Sometimes paper towels work but when they don't it can make you want to go butt your head against the shop wall.

When I train a painter the most difficult thing to teach is that you can't be too clean, and how to do the cleaning. People tend to pooh-pooh this aspect of painting, and they are the ones who say "...I've painted this thing three times and it is still coming out with the same problem." Once you have achieved cleanliness the rest is just not very difficult.

Didn't mean to write so much about this but it is actually one of the most important steps in painting.

Bill Byles:
Thank you for the helpful information in Post #34. In it you describe the importance of cleaning the surface with Sikkens, Ditzler, or Prepsol to remove non-water soluble surface contaminants. I am very leery of the ingredients in those products and have used alcohol instead. It "seems" to work, meaning that I have had no problems with either Brodak or Sig dope. Am I deluding myself or is the alcohol something of a substitute for those other products?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

>The way to clean the surface, both for the water and the
>solvent is to get one rag wet (not just damp, but wet almost
>to the point of dripping) with the water or the solvent
>(whichever you are using at this point) and have the clean,
>dry rag in the other hand. Wipe only one wing panel at a
>time (say, the outboard upper panel) with the wet rag,
>wetting the surface thoroughly. Immediately wipe the panel
>dry with the dry rag, turning the rag as needed to keep a
>clean rag surface to the panel.

One caution - Sikkens is not foam-friendly! Recently Jim Aron discovered this the hard way. He is building an Infinity with balsa-covered foam surfaces (wing,stab,elevator). He was wet-sanding using Sikkens as a medium, and everything was coming out fine. But after about a week, he found that the Sikkens had run into the wing through the hinge slots, and had begun eating the foam and collapsing it in places. So now he has some cratering.

So it's great to use, but don't let too much of it run around or really soak in.

>
>>The way to clean the surface, both for the water and the
>>solvent is to get one rag wet (not just damp, but wet almost
>>to the point of dripping) with the water or the solvent
>>(whichever you are using at this point) and have the clean,
>>dry rag in the other hand. Wipe only one wing panel at a
>>time (say, the outboard upper panel) with the wet rag,
>>wetting the surface thoroughly. Immediately wipe the panel
>>dry with the dry rag, turning the rag as needed to keep a
>>clean rag surface to the panel.
>
> One caution - Sikkens is not foam-friendly! Recently Jim
>Aron discovered this the hard way. He is building an
>Infinity with balsa-covered foam surfaces
>(wing,stab,elevator). He was wet-sanding using Sikkens as a
>medium, and everything was coming out fine. But after about
>a week, he found that the Sikkens had run into the wing
>through the hinge slots, and had begun eating the foam and
>collapsing it in places. So now he has some cratering.
>
> So it's great to use, but don't let too much of it run
>around or really soak in.
>
> Brett

Brett,

Very good point...I had not thought about foam wings with respect to M600 or other paint surface cleaning products since I haven't used foam wings, I have been doing it the old-fashioned way with built-up wings. I do, however, have a beautiful set of sheeted foam wings that were given to me and it would have been an unhappy surprise to find out the hard way that the foam was dissolved after getting as far along as the painting. Thanks for the info!

> I do, however, have
>a beautiful set of sheeted foam wings that were given to me
>and it would have been an unhappy surprise to find out the
>hard way that the foam was dissolved after getting as far
>along as the painting. Thanks for the info!

Jim was less than entirely pleased, as well.

>Bill If it works for you PLEASE tell us what you do.
>
>Brodak gives me fits. Painting gives me fits.
>
>Please help

Scott, I emailed you privately last night and will follow up on that one.

>
>The techniques I showed above work year in and year out for
>not only me (on a daily basis for full scale airplanes, and
>on an every time basis for models) but for a lot of other
>modelers. You seem really unwilling to admit that maybe you
>can learn something about the product application. Let's
>just agree to disagree about this subject and let it go at
>that.

No, that is really nice and happy and special and all and I am sincerely glad for you, but maybe YOU can learn that that set of parameters doesn't always work for everyone, everywhere- THAT is the point you keep missing.

I can feel the love in this thread

Bottom line, use what makes you happy...

>No, that is really nice and happy and special and all and I
>am sincerely glad for you, but maybe YOU can learn that that
>set of parameters doesn't always work for everyone,
>everywhere- THAT is the point you keep missing.
>
>Jake

Jake, the point that you seem to keep missing is that finishing an airplane with dope is not an exercise in VooDoo, Black Magic, or other occult efforts. It is also not a matter of luck. If you are using the same product then it boils down to technique. You are absolutely unable to admit that your technique may not be all that it could be for this process. Everybody is ignorant, just on different subjects.

I am very experienced with finishing using, among other types, dope finishes. However, I do not know, and admit freely that I do not want to know much about engines, for instance. I just want to be able to have them run consistently at the field and at contests. If I am having a problem getting an engine to run the way it should then I don't blame the engine and swear off using it forever. I turn to the folks who do know how to make them work (Tom Lay, Randy Smith, et al).

The fact that you have had bad experiences with a product definitely does not mean that the product is no good.

>
>>No, that is really nice and happy and special and all and I
>>am sincerely glad for you, but maybe YOU can learn that that
>>set of parameters doesn't always work for everyone,
>>everywhere- THAT is the point you keep missing.
>>
>>Jake
>
>
>Jake, the point that you seem to keep missing is that
>finishing an airplane with dope is not an exercise in
>VooDoo, Black Magic, or other occult efforts. It is also
>not a matter of luck. If you are using the same product
>then it boils down to technique. You are absolutely unable
>to admit that your technique may not be all that it could be
>for this process. Everybody is ignorant, just on different
>subjects.
>
>I am very experienced with finishing using, among other
>types, dope finishes. However, I do not know, and admit
>freely that I do not want to know much about engines, for
>instance. I just want to be able to have them run
>consistently at the field and at contests. If I am having
>a problem getting an engine to run the way it should then I
>don't blame the engine and swear off using it forever. I
>turn to the folks who do know how to make them work (Tom
>Lay, Randy Smith, et al).
>
>The fact that you have had bad experiences with a product
>definitely does not mean that the product is no good.
>
>

Oh please, give it a rest! You use what you like and works for you and I'll use what works for me and the rest of the people can all do the same.

"Everybody is ignorant, just on different
subjects."

You aren't just a woofin' there!
Don't preach at me, you're wasting ammo.

Jake
>
>
>
>

>Oh please, give it a rest!

Jake, I thought I tried to give it a rest when I said "let's agree to disagree".

>You use what you like and works
>for you and I'll use what works for me and the rest of the
>people can all do the same.

Jake, I'd say that is pretty much what we all do anyway.

>"Everybody is ignorant, just on different
>subjects."
>
>You aren't just a woofin' there!
>Don't preach at me, you're wasting ammo.

Jake, Amen...denial again.

>
>>Oh please, give it a rest!
>
>Jake, I thought I tried to give it a rest when I said "let's
>agree to disagree".
>
>
>>You use what you like and works
>>for you and I'll use what works for me and the rest of the
>>people can all do the same.
>
>Jake, I'd say that is pretty much what we all do anyway.
>
>
>>"Everybody is ignorant, just on different
>>subjects."
>>
>>You aren't just a woofin' there!
>>Don't preach at me, you're wasting ammo.
>
>Jake, Amen...denial again.

You know "Bill" you sound amazingly like someone else I have crossed swords with on the 'net a time or two before.

>No, it is what works. I can bust a deer in the neck with a
>.25-20 Winchester at 75 yards and drop it; that doesn't mean
>it qualifies as a deer cartridge or that I should say I just
>need to "improve my technique" if it doesn't work for the
>other 98% of the guys out there.
>
>Jake

Jake, check the logic of what you wrote above...why would you need to improve your technique if it works for you but doesn't work for the other 98% of the guys out there? And, hey, sounds like you are pretty knowledgeable about hunting, maybe even more so than about finishing?

>>No, it is what works. I can bust a deer in the neck with a
>>.25-20 Winchester at 75 yards and drop it; that doesn't mean
>>it qualifies as a deer cartridge or that I should say I just
>>need to "improve my technique" if it doesn't work for the
>>other 98% of the guys out there.
>>
>>Jake
>
>
>Jake, check the logic of what you wrote above...why would
>you need to improve your technique if it works for you but
>doesn't work for the other 98% of the guys out there? And,
>hey, sounds like you are pretty knowledgeable about hunting,
>maybe even more so than about finishing?

Excuse me a second here, there is such a thing as "reading and comprehension"- I never said any such thing as you claim, I said the exact opposite. Next time I need a model done in Sig dope I'll be sure and ship it up to you so you can do it up on video and show the rest of us peasants how it is done- on YOUR nickle.

>No, it is what works.

Is it? I guess you'll find out when you try it.

>Jake, Bill, how long have you two been married??? Sounds
>like an old married couple I used to know. ha, ha, ha, ha.
>Sig is good, Brodaks is better and Aero Gloss just can't cut
>the mustard. Too thin and will not go over or under Sig or
>Brodaks.
>
>As to Brodaks, I just lift the phone, give them a call, very
>friendly lady talks to me, calls me sweet heart and honey
>and I give her a credit card number and two days later the
>Federal Express truck pulls into my drive way and I have
>Brodaks products. The time waiting I use to sand, sand,
>sand.
>
>You two, kiss and make up or get of the porch and let
>somewlse use those rocking chairs.

Uh, uh. Never been married and never will be. I don't have a rocking chair either, just dirt bikes.

Testors all the way!

Double Horse brand.

....but Humbrol has such a nice shine.

A few years ago I bought some Aerogloss that had Testors jar tops. Did Aerogloss (Midwest?) buy Testors (just the jars?)?

Or did I perhaps get something mixed by the hobby shop owner?
It worked in any case.

>No negativism on reply #6! But I sprayed an old castor
>soaked Quickie Rat last night with epoxy paint and violated
>all the rules Bill Byles laid out in his post. Very
>interesting paint job- I hope it wipes off with acetone or
>something. Some negativism starting to bleed through....All
>the best,

Hi Dale, I have found that epoxy paints (particularly the two part, hardner and base type) are very sensitive to contamination. I'm not sure why one would use the one part epoxies or polyurethanes, other than the fact that the one part types are less hazardous to your health (and less expensive).

However, the one part types do not have any greater scuff or chemical resistance than, say, spray can Rustoleum.

What does your Quickie Rat paint job look like?

I really can't tell you what it looks like- Leonard's forum deletes my description! This is an old veteran that I suddenly decided deserved a face lift. I wiped it down with laquer thinner and alcohol using a pink shop rag, then sanded it- the old k&b epoxy dusted off ok, then I wiped with a paper towel in prepsol(actually a generic). Then a "coat" of hobbypoxy primer that "beaded" quite well! In some places it adhered, not many. Wiped it off best I could with prepsol again, shot another coat and let it "dry" overnight- stayed very tacky. Looked tacky and felt tacky! Right now it's in the car with the windows closed and the sun beaming on it. I'm hoping for an endo/exothermic reaction. Your post on keeping things clean as possible is the answer to 99.9% of all my painting problems,ie,contamination of the surface to be painted. The tackiness on this particular plane may prove to be a boon as my pit-pal, Phil Dunlap, (engine builder extraordinare) sometimes loses his grip! These planes and our SportGoodyears take a beating-cartwheeling into the pits, torque rolling, etc, so the 2part epoxies have given us a level of durability that is remarkable (and they shine!).First k&b and now hobbypoxy is kaput. We're checking out the new KlassicKote and it looks like they have a good product for this application. Thanks,

>I really can't tell you what it looks like- Leonard's forum
>deletes my description! This is an old veteran that I
>suddenly decided deserved a face lift. I wiped it down with
>laquer thinner and alcohol using a pink shop rag, then
>sanded it- the old k&b epoxy dusted off ok, then I wiped
>with a paper towel in prepsol(actually a generic). Then a
>"coat" of hobbypoxy primer that "beaded" quite well! In some
>places it adhered, not many. Wiped it off best I could with
>prepsol again, shot another coat and let it "dry" overnight-
>stayed very tacky. Looked tacky and felt tacky! Right now
>it's in the car with the windows closed and the sun beaming
>on it. I'm hoping for an endo/exothermic reaction. Your post
>on keeping things clean as possible is the answer to 99.9%
>of all my painting problems,ie,contamination of the surface
>to be painted. The tackiness on this particular plane may
>prove to be a boon as my pit-pal, Phil Dunlap, (engine
>builder extraordinare) sometimes loses his grip! These
>planes and our SportGoodyears take a beating-cartwheeling
>into the pits, torque rolling, etc, so the 2part epoxies
>have given us a level of durability that is remarkable (and
>they shine!).First k&b and now hobbypoxy is kaput. We're
>checking out the new KlassicKote and it looks like they have
>a good product for this application. Thanks,

Dale, that bad, eh? The tackiness that won't seem to go away is usually the result of one of a couple of things. Old hardner will sometimes not react fully with the base and will not cure. If your paint is fresh then this is not likely to be the problem. The other thing that can cause the epoxy to fail to cure is the contamination on the surface, such as silicone, oil, etc. migrating into the fresh epoxy and preventing curing.

Using proper cleaning techniques and surface preparation can solve a myriad of problems. Oh, and guess how I know about the effects of surface contamination...? My first big lesson about cleaning solvents dissolving the binders in paper towels came when I had all four panels of a set of Stearman wings (full-scale airplane, and a Stearman has a huge amount of wing area) hanging in my spray booth and I wiped them off using paper towels with Sikkens M600. The case of paper towels had been donated to me by a surgeon friend of mine and I couldn't pass up such a good deal.

I got all four panels sprayed with the high dollar polyurethane and the problem did not show up immediately so I got all the way around all four panels. As I walked by the first panel to go out and refill the pressure pot I about jumped out of my skin when I looked at the surface of the wing and I could see the wiping pattern left by the binder in the paper towels. The paint beaded up in big furrows. What a mess. So after that I used the paper towels for cleaning up the paint bench and not for cleaning surfaces to be painted.

It cost me easily eight hours in shop labor for which I could not get paid to save about $8-$10 in clean paint rags. One of life's lessons.

>
>It cost me easily eight hours in shop labor for which I
>could not get paid to save about $8-$10 in clean paint rags.
> One of life's lessons.

...Bill,

My lesson in this was (aluminum) flaps and ailerons for a Beech Bonanza: wiped them off after etch and alodine with paper towels and final prep, had to strip and totally redo the job

After doing my Bo' with Imron and my Bellanca with Randolf I must say I really, really don't like to work with two part polyurethanes.

>>
>>It cost me easily eight hours in shop labor for which I
>>could not get paid to save about $8-$10 in clean paint rags.
>> One of life's lessons.
>
>...Bill,
>
>My lesson in this was (aluminum) flaps and ailerons for a
>Beech Bonanza: wiped them off after etch and alodine with
>paper towels and final prep, had to strip and totally redo
>the job
>
>
>After doing my Bo' with Imron and my Bellanca with Randolf I
>must say I really, really don't like to work with two part
>polyurethanes.

Hi Ron,

I agree that the two part polys are a health hazard; it is only the results that keep me using the stuff on full-scale airplanes.

Bonanzas, as far as I know, had all magnesium skinned control surfaces...did yours have aluminum? (Just curious as the ones I have refinished had mag).

Yeah, having to strip new paint and repaint is just a drag. Those cheap paper towels are not so cheap after one of those experiences.

Epilog, re reply #51: No endo/exothermic reactions forthcoming so scrubbed all the sticky uncatalyzed goo off with laquer thinner and elbow grease. Then removed all grease with prepsol-soaked cotton cloth undergarments and dried thoroughly. Shot two rattle-can coats of Topflite Teal monocote-matching paint and am pleased with the great result. Finished putting all the hardware back on by midnight and scratched at the DMAA racing contest before noon. Others flew in the high winds and turbulence but I didn't want to mar my beautiful new finish! best regards,

My Rustoleum covered Scale Racer is ready for you Dale. Course I know that is why you've chickened out and are going to Dallas!

Heads up, should have a Quickee Rat later this year.

Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!

>>
>>
>>If you would do it correctly in the first place you would
>>only have to finish the airframe once. Doing it over three
>>times using the same technique seems like a plan to fail,
>>not to mention your being unwilling to learn. All the
>>failures would seem to indicate that your techniques are NOT
>>up to speed, when so many of the rest of us are not having
>>the problems that you are having.
>>
>>If you have equipment problems then fix them...
>>
>>Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
>
>
>That "joke" is as old as the Sphinx itself.
>I already told you I tried several diffent things each time-
>with the same results. I didn't use the "same technique" as
>you claimed I did.
>I am really sorry now I ever started this thread to begin
>with- you make a BLEEP-poor teacher, you might try
>re-examining your approach.
>I hate to break this too you, but there are very likely
>equally as many others (if not more) who ARE having
>problems.
>
>Jake

Hey Jake,

If you don't like the "denial" saying then how about the one that goes "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? While I have never claimed to be a teacher there are two sides to teaching/learning. The information can be put out there but if the "student" is not willing to read/comprehend/learn and set aside "denial" then no learning will result.

Also, while I hate to break this to YOU, there are a number of modelers I know who have had/are having problems with Brodak dope. However, they have been willing to try new/different techniques in an effort to solve their problem. Brodak dope is not the problem in these cases, either...it is just a learning curve.

And, by the way, where did you say that "...you have tried several different things each time"? As I read your post it said (and this is a "copy & paste" from your post): "Excuse me, but you are WRONG. How many times would you like me to refinish an ariframe? I have done a couple three times with the exact same results..."

Well, let me see if I can simplify this for you. I didn't ask you for teaching or advice- nor will I ever. I asked if most people were generally happy with Brodak dope. When I said I redid an airframe, I never said once that I used EXACTLY the same method each time. Once maybe, two times, no way.

>Well, let me see if I can simplify this for you. I didn't
>ask you for teaching or advice- nor will I ever. I asked if
>most people were generally happy with Brodak dope. When I
>said I redid an airframe, I never said once that I used
>EXACTLY the same method each time. Once maybe, two times, no
>way.
>
>Jake

Jake,

Let me see if this can be simplified enough for YOU. Most people are happy with Brodak dope. Most people are happy with Sig, Randolph, and Certified brand dopes also. I am happy with the results of all of these brands as they are all excellent quality products.

Where I disagree with you is when you unfairly blame an excellent product like Sig for the bad results that you got with it when most other modelers are not having those problems with the same product. Had you done the same thing with Brodak, Randolph, or any other product that I know for a fact is an excellent, high quality product I would have done exactly the same thing. Of course SOME modelers prefer Brodak dope; of course SOME prefer Randolph dope; of course SOME prefer Sig. I have, in the past, had problems with each of these products...in each case where I had a problem it was traced to my technique.

Once again, you are absolutely unable to admit that there is the slightest possibility that there may be something that you could learn about applying a dope finish. I really do not have any desire to teach you anything about finishing, nor am I trying to do so, whether or not you care to learn. I simply object to your unfairly slamming a great product which has been proven over a long period of time (like 30+ years). There have been many airplanes in the front row of appearance judging at the Nats with Sig dope finishes (as well as Randolph, Certified, et al) and somehow the builders managed to use this "poor" product to achieve a top grade finish.

If you are unable to achieve the finish to which you aspire then just use a different product; you don't need to write these unfair vitriolic diatribes about the product that does not work for you.

At the risk of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, especially as a new-be, I can not remain quiet any longer. I have used Sig Dope for many years dating back to the early sixties. However Brodak will be my dope of choice from now on, NO more Sig Dopes for me. Why you ask? Simply because I had a recent bad experience with it that I NEVER had before, PLUS the fact that nearly everyone I talk too says basically the same thing ..... Sig simply is not the dope it once was. In my area probably 4 out of 5 model dope users that I talk to tell me to stay away from the modern day Sig dopes, use Brodak or Randolph they say.

Billbytes, I think you are out of line in stating that Jake has no call in saying what he feels about this Sig product, or any other product for that matter ..... last I heard this is still a free Country? And how do you know what techniques Jake is or is not using, bottom line is you do not! Does everyone need to be a "Merlin" in order to make the Sig dopes work or what? Obviously Jake's techniques (whatever they were) once worked on Sig dopes, but now does NOT, as seems to be the case with MANY modelers out there, at least the majority that I have talked to and also my own experiences. I've even had modelers from Canada just very recently expressing the same concerns over the Sig dopes. Near as I can interpret it, the Sigment glue is no longer worth using either, I donno, just what I hear and read? Billbytes, You just keep on reiterating over and over again..... please, leave it alone already?! Jake has the right to express his opinions on any products or brand names as he sees fit ..... if not we are all in deep do-do. Of course you have the same rights, but how much must the horse be beaten?

Sincerely, injunnut1 ... (Don Garry from Florida)

>At the risk of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong,
>especially as a new-be, I can not remain quiet any longer. I
>have used Sig Dope for many years dating back to the early
>sixties. However Brodak will be my dope of choice from now
>on, NO more Sig Dopes for me. Why you ask? Simply because I
>had a recent bad experience with it that I NEVER had before,
>PLUS the fact that nearly everyone I talk too says basically
>the same thing ..... Sig simply is not the dope it once was.
>In my area probably 4 out of 5 model dope users that I talk
>to tell me to stay away from the modern day Sig dopes, use
>Brodak or Randolph they say.
>
>Billbytes, I think you are out of line in stating that Jake
>has no call in saying what he feels about this Sig product,
>or any other product for that matter ..... last I heard this
>is still a free Country? And how do you know what techniques
>Jake is or is not using, bottom line is you do not! Does
>everyone need to be a "Merlin" in order to make the Sig
>dopes work or what? Obviously Jake's techniques (whatever
>they were) once worked on Sig dopes, but now does NOT, as
>seems to be the case with MANY modelers out there, at least
>the majority that I have talked to and also my own
>experiences. I've even had modelers from Canada just very
>recently expressing the same concerns over the Sig dopes.
>Near as I can interpret it, the Sigment glue is no longer
>worth using either, I donno, just what I hear and read?
>Billbytes, You just keep on reiterating over and over
>again..... please, leave it alone already?! Jake has the
>right to express his opinions on any products or brand names
>as he sees fit ..... if not we are all in deep do-do. Of
>course you have the same rights, but how much must the horse
>be beaten?
>
>Sincerely, injunnut1 ... (Don Garry from Florida)

Don, I guess that, obviously, you and I are talking to a different group of people; and we are having very different experiences with Sig dope products. Using the current Sig products with the same techniques I have always used I am still getting the same front-row quality finishes that I have gotten for many years.

Based on my experiences, and those of the guys who I know out here on the West Coast also using Sig, Sig is the same excellent product it has been for years. I am not trying to tell anybody that they cannot express an opinion or a preference; however, when they cannot express that preference or opinion without defaming and vilifying the product that they no longer prefer then that is when I object and will say so. It is possible to say "...I don't like Sig products anymore and will now be using (Brodak or Randolph, or Certified, or________, fill in the blank) because Sig isn't working for me".

If Jake had put his preference as you did in your post above I would have never felt the need to respond. You just said that you had a recent bad experience with Sig and that now you are going to use Brodak. How can anybody take issue with that? Your response was light years away from Jake's statements.

And, you are correct, I do not know what techniques Jake is using. All I know is that I am using the same Sig products that Jake says that he cannot get good results with, and I am getting the same results that I have always gotten using the same techniques that I have always used. That says to me that the difference is in the preparation and application techniques and not in the product.

Bottom line for me is that I see no reason to defame the name of one product just because a person has found a product that works better for him.

Maybe I'm blind or just bliss with ignorance, but to be honest I simply fail to see the excessive flamming of Sig by Jake .... not any more than anyone else's comments regarding their bad experiences with a given product? This issue here seems to me like a simple mole-hill having fast and furiously turned into a run-a-way snow-ball effect, growing bigger and very rapidly uglier whilst becoming the notorious Grande Mountain.
Consider this senario: I love Cox reed valve engines and yet I continuously and constantly hear others blatently bad mouthing Cox products, particularly the reed valve engines. I consider myself a Cox engine expert and know the Reed Valve engines inside and out .... others simply do not nor will they ever, that's just the way it is and these people are totally sincere in their beliefs the Cox reed valve engines are now, always have been, and always will be nothing but JUNK! Now then, I'm not crazy about what Estes has done with the Cox products, not to mention the Sterling product line too ..... but what you gonna do but grin and bear it, I donno? For what it is worth, it was a sad day in America when Hazel finally bowed out at Sig, another sad day when Ace RC sold out to China, and a truly sad day when World Engines gave it up to Great Planes. Thank goodness for the few remaining cottage industries and small operations like Brodak! Who other than me misses the great Norvel magazine ads and their once super online store and $$prices$$ since they dealt Sig the engine distribution rights, maybe nobody, I donno?

Let's all enjoy the hobby with the freedom to choose products of our choice and let's get on with having FUN, what this hobby is supposed to be all about?! Who cares what particular dopes that who in particular uses, not me? I'll take the old square bottle Testor's dopes any day of the week, <grin> See photo ....

WHAT excessive flaming? I said I didn't have success (recently) with the product and wouldn't use it again- I never once told anyone else not to. I have used Sig a lot in the past. I have been painting models somewhere over four decades now- I have had ups and downs, but I have never once given up on anything unless the outcome was consistantly less than the input- then it is time to switch to something else. All I asked was if most people were generally happy with Brodak dope- that is it. I don't need any further input.
If you and Bill can understand that fine, if not- so be it.

>WHAT excessive flaming?
>Jake

That's what I said, didn't I ???

>>WHAT excessive flaming?
>>Jake
>
>That's what I said, didn't I ???
>
Yeah, you did and the the question is still the same. Let's take this to e-mail and not clutter up Len's board, shall we?

Leonard,

I guess Glen Sig just liked guys named Mike from Minnesota - Mike Stott, Mike Pratt, Mike Gretz - all from Minnesota - all former or active C/L stunt fliers!

Coincidently, Mike Stott stopped by here just last week on his way through Iowa. So the 3 Mikes from Minnesota went out to lunch at the local restaurant (the only one in this little town called Montezuma, IA Yes, we talked a bit of stunt.

Few know that Mike Stott and I used to keep a 1-on-1 trophy just between us back in the 1970s. Whoever beat the other guy the most during the season got to keep the trophy over the winter. The trophy is still at Stott's house because he won it last. Mikey Pratt has been trying for years to get Stott and I out of stunt retirement so that he can win the trophy. We won't do it because we're afraid he would win. We need to get in some secret practice first.

By the way Leonard, I've been "lurking" around your wonderful message board for several years. Like the rest, I NEED my daily SSW fix.

Donald,

Don't feel too bad. Mike is a great guy, and a plus to the hobby. But if you haven't been involced in this aspect of the hobby for some time, you probably wouldn't recognise the name.

As to the OLD country boy from the deep South..... a lot of folks do not realize just what that entails.
We seem to have a morals and character formula that is a throwback to the olden days of this great country. (see my seperate post on this topic where I get hammered! LOL!!)
Personally, I am an OLD REDNECK country boy from the mountains of the South, so I have a double shot of what many view as bad! LOL!!!!!!

Bill <><

Don,
No apology necessary. I was simply trying to state my distaste for screen names. More often than not, BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD, when you witness a real flame war going on on the web, the people yelling the loudest don't show their names. The anonimity seams to make them bolder. But I'm not saying that all people who use screen names are flamers. No way!

The above is my personal opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Your opinion can be different from mine without needing an apology. I'm realistic enough to know that screen names aren't going to go away.

It's time for this thread to die, so we can hear more nuts and bolts talk about our favorite hobby.