Re: Fiberglassing Techniques

John Loram <johnl@...>

Hello Jon:

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

If you are a "follow the plans" guy, disregard everything I have said and
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

Yes, you do need the to sand the micro before you add the glass. The
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 :

eGroups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Quickie Builders Association WEB site

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Quickie Builders Association WEB site

Join to automatically receive all group messages.