Re: Fiberglassing Techniques
|
John Loram <johnl@...>
Hello Jon:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Boy!, having done only the "wet micro" lay-ups, what you say seems counter intuitive to me... In what way is the "dry micro" lay-up easier/faster/better? You mention the ease of air removal, but it sound to me that the process you describe just adds another time consuming step; that of the sanding the hardened micro shell to contour. Do not the multiple layers of fiber glass, on top of the carefully contoured micro shell, just destroy all the careful contouring work you've done?. Seems to me that once the fiber glass is down, you just have to do it all that careful contouring again. Or, even if the fiberglassing does not change the contour of the micro shell, would you not still have to go through the process finishing the surface of the glass in which you accomplish both the filling and final contouring in a single operation? Please explain, more! I know for your comment, " I now remember exactly why I decided to use the hard shell technique!", that I'm missing something....... thanks, -john-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [mailto:finley@...] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:10 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Fiberglassing Techniques I have seen layups use both techniques. The Q plans call for the micro to be wet (not dry) when you apply the glass. The EZ community has done a lot of experimentation with what they call "hard shelling." They cut the cores, sand them, apply micro, sand it, and then apply the glass. The idea is that the micro can be sanded to achieve a near perfect contour before applying the glass. It also results in an easy layup (generally) and is much, much easier to get all the air out. To be clear: I am not talking about applying micro to low spots in the core or repairing core damage. I am talking about applying a micro shell around the core before applying the glass. I have always understood that the purpose of micro is to provide some "bite" into the foam (like little fingers going into the foam). The foam (if properly prepared) is smooth and contoured already it just has lots of little holes in it. Yes, the quality of the bond was an issue. The conclusion was that the glass to (dry) micro bond is a lot stronger than the micro to foam bond is so it is not a concern. This was tested by quite a few folks with different techniques but the result was always the same. Peeling the glass up always pulled the micro and bits of foam with it. You could reference CSA back issues for details. My personal conclusion (from reading and doing a hard shell layup) was that I would never do another wet micro layout as the "hard shell" layup is so much easier. I just glassed my replacement tail cone and didn't want to have to hangar warm for several days (day or two for micro to cure and then another day or two for glass to cure) so I did a "traditional" (per Q plans) layup. I now remember exactly why I decided to use the hard shell technique! If you are a "follow the plans" guy, disregard everything I have said and FOLLOW THE PLANS!! Jon Finley Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo Apple Valley, MN -----Original Message----- From: Chris McAtee [mailto:Subcanis@...] Sent: December 06, 2000 8:44 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Questions questions Dave- Yes, you do need the to sand the micro before you add the glass. The micro, from what I understand, just makes the surface more true in reguards to smoothness and contour, resulting in less post-glass filling in. Chris McAtee ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com eGroups Sponsor To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Q-LIST-unsubscribe@... Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Q-LIST-unsubscribe@... Quickie Builders Association WEB site http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
|
|
|