Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:59 AM - Re: coverings (Dave G.)
2. 05:34 AM - Re: coverings (Andy Fultz)
3. 06:14 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox I mods (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
4. 09:33 AM - Re: Poly-Brush? (Donroutledge@aol.com)
5. 09:34 AM - Re: coverings (Lowell Fitt)
6. 09:53 AM - Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change (RRTRACK@aol.com)
7. 10:35 AM - Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change (Jose M. Toro)
8. 10:44 AM - Re: coverings (Jose M. Toro)
9. 10:48 AM - Re: IFR in a kitfox (Michel Verheughe)
10. 10:53 AM - Re: coverings (Tim Vader)
11. 11:38 AM - Re: IFR in a kitfox (akflyer)
12. 12:04 PM - Re: coverings (Michel Verheughe)
13. 03:23 PM - Re: IFR in a kitfox (Marco Menezes)
14. 05:33 PM - Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change (Noel Loveys)
15. 06:05 PM - Re: coverings (KITFOXZ@AOL.COM)
16. 07:36 PM - Re: coverings (Dave G.)
17. 07:55 PM - Re: coverings (Bob)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I think the number of coats is similar to the others, 2-2.5 cross coats of
the final finish. I figured there were less total coats than Poly and about
the same as Hipec. The starting point is to obtain the reference materials
for all the systems you are considering. I think all three are fine systems,
there is also the Loehle Aero coatings and others. I simply mentioned the
Stewart one because it is the one I chose and I'm happy with it.
Actually my Model IV is a mongrel in finishing, The fuselage is polythane
which will have 3 small Stewart finished patches. The wings are Stewart
systems, but the ribs were primed with Poly epoxy varnish. I'll be
recovering the fuselage at some point and it will be all Stewart (more MEK
to wipe all the polybrush off)
Harry, if you want I may be able to fix you up with some reference material
for the Stewart System, contact me off list if it will help you.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Cieslar" <hcieslar@cabletv.on.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:32 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings
>
> Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked
> at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are
> potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention.
> My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is
> how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or
> more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to
> decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked
> to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs.
> However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent
> breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice.
> Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Harry,
I don't think that the Stewart Systems process is any more time consuming
than any other. In fact there's fewer steps in the Stewart process than
there are in other processes. There is very little time between coats. On
the bigger pieces, by the time you reach the end of one coat you start back
at the beginning with the next coat. You really should get in touch with
Doug and/or Dan Stewart and have a talk with them. They are very helpful.
They have a set of DVD's that will walk you through the process and you can
see for yourself just how easy it is. The Stewart System is pretty amazing.
Andy Fultz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Harry
Cieslar
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:33 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings
Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked
at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are
potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they
mention. My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other
systems is how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and
top coat 5 or more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot
and am trying to decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest ,
strongest etc . I talked to a few users and saw a plane which looked
very good after 15 yrs. However the toxicity is my concern. I would need
a full independent breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid.
Any advice.
Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox I mods |
Sorry if that post was a bit confusing, I just reread it and see that I sho
uld have said the stiffeners in the spars changed with different models.
Sorry, Jim Chuk
From: thesupe@hotmail.comTo: kitfox-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Kitfox-L
ist: Re: Kitfox I modsDate: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:31:06 +0000
I believe the Kitfox 1 has a gross weight of 850 lbs. I know that the stif
feners in the wings were changed as the models changed. I have a set of Ki
tfox 1 wings and the spar thickness is the same as the ones on a Kitfox 3.
Both were .063 if I remember correctly. But like I said, the stiffners we
re totally different and I suppose that had something to do with the increa
sed gross weight. I just remembered another change, the strut attachment p
oint is closer to the wingtip on the 3 than the 1. About 10" if my memory
it right. Hope this is of some help. Jim Chuk, Avid MK IV Jabiru, Chishol
m Mn> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox I mods> From: akflyer_2000@yahoo.com
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:46:35 -0800> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > -
ne has never been registered. I dont think he is too darn worried about leg
al.. I bet the plane is never registered, he just wants it safe. The guy ha
s 1000's of hours flying up here and has had many other planes. He also doe
s not want to re-invent the wheel so he asked me to find out what mods peop
le had done.> > --------> DO NOT ARCHIVE> Leonard Perry> Soldotna AK> Avid
"C" / Mk IV > 582 IVO IFA> Full Lotus 1260> 95% complete> > > > >
Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?
p=147641#147641> > > > > ===> > >
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now!
_________________________________________________________________
Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate.- Join i
n.
www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Andy, Does the Stewart system include the fabric also or can I apply the
Stewart products over ceconite?Thanks for your help. Don Kitfox MKIV
copy/subaru/west Tn
In a message dated 11/20/2007 9:29:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
andynfultz@bellsouth.net writes:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andy Fultz" <andynfultz@bellsouth.net>
I'll second that. Now that I'm in the process of covering, I can assure you
I will never use that other stuff again. Stewart Systems is ten times
easier to use, there's no volital chemicals and there's no odor. Clean up
is a cinch. That other stuff has such a strong odor it about chokes me now
to even be around where it is being used. Stewart's is now STC'd and will
soon become the standard for aircraft covering. You'll also save several
pounds in the finished weight. NO, I don't work for the company and have no
ties other than being a satisfied user of the product.
Andy Fultz
AVID Mk IV Speedwing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave G.
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Poly-Brush?
As long as coatings are being discussed, I'd like to mention the coatings
from Stewart Systems. I know that Polyfiber works but I had/have a huge
problem with the MEK or one of the solvents in it. I can only use it for a
very short time and my eyes start to feel very dry and irritated, a feeling
that lasts for days even if the shop is well ventilated. I decided to try
Stewart Systems line of water borne product and so far I couldn't be
happier. The support has been excellent the price has been good and I have
no problem being around and in contact with any of the products. I've found
the whole line to be easy to use. There is no doubt Polyfiber is the
standard, but the alternatives have worked out better for me.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
List,
I like the idea of a safer material as well, but a quick look at the MSDS on
MEK http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BU/2-butanone.html doesn't convince me
that the "old stand" by Polyfiber system is that much of a risk regarding
health. Yes, it has a strong smell, but with the exception of that it is
fairly harmless with proper ventilation. In fact that reminds me of
something my dad told me once - PhD Chemistry. Hydrogen Sulfide is much
more toxic than Hydrogen Cyanide. The fact that we don't hear much about
exposure problems is because it smells so bad it drives the potential victim
to fresh air. A full breathing system for MEK based systems is way over
kill in my opinion, just open the door or maybe a couple of doors. I would
think that working with it in an enclosed work space there would be much
more risk due to the possibility of explosion and fire and that alone would
prompt me to open the doors to my hangar, shut off the pilot lights etc. and
just be prudent.
My now deceased Model IV was Polyfiber covered and finished with Aerothane
and based on durability reports on some of the water based systems, my next
airplane will be Polyfiber and Aerothane. I did use a respirator for the
Aerothane, but a one off project is much different than a career of covering
airplanes. Again my opinion. I know some used a fresh air system and I
respect that decision. I know they do in the Kitfox factory, but again that
is a production facility with painting going on regularly with the
possibility of chronic build up of toxicity.
I do apapreciate the pioneers though. What we really need are more guys
willing to branch out and then report results. Then we will have assembled
a data base that will help all that will follow to make informed decisions.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Cieslar" <hcieslar@cabletv.on.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings
>
> Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked
> at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are
> potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention.
> My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is
> how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or
> more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to
> decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked
> to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs.
> However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent
> breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice.
> Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change |
Jose
You "can" change the gross weight of a certified airplane. I've done it
already. I just sent a letter to my local FSDO requesting the change along with
documentation to justify the change. But you cannot lower the gross weight
to meet LSA standards. Once an airplane is certified over 1320# it cannot be
used as an LSA.
The early Avid's were 850 gross as well, but after the installation of
flapperon ballencers, the factory increased the gross to 911#.
Mark
Kitfox 5 Vixen
912UL IVO
Hartford, Wisconsin
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change |
Mark: Just learned something new. Thanks! :-)
----- Original Message ----
From: "RRTRACK@aol.com" <RRTRACK@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:40:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change
Jose
You "can" change the gross weight of a certified airplane. I've done it already.
I just sent a letter to my local FSDO requesting the change along with documentation
to justify the change. But you cannot lower the gross weight to meet
LSA standards. Once an airplane is certified over 1320# it cannot be used as
an LSA.
The early Avid's were 850 gross as well, but after the installation of flapperon
ballencers, the factory increased the gross to 911#.
Mark
Kitfox 5 Vixen
912UL IVO
Hartford, Wisconsin
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters
of 2007.
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Lowell Fitt wrote:
"...my next airplane will be Polyfiber and Aerothane."
There is going to be a next airplane. These are good news!!! My best wishes for
both you and your wife.
Jos
ex Kitfox II/582
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR in a kitfox |
On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Marco Menezes wrote:
> I had a similar experience returning from Oshkosh this August, flying
> over lake Michigan.
Thanks for sharing, Marco. I have two questions:
1) How did you keep from going in a bank if you didn't had a giro
instrument?
2) Is on-top permitted in the US with non-certified engines? It is not
in Norway. The idea is: You must always have a possible landing place
in sight. Something you can't over the clouds. Maybe it's our
mountainous terrain that dictates that.
The only time I flew on-top (against my best judgement) it was over the
fog and I knew it would be clear at arrival, it was only a round trip.
Here it is:
http://home.online.no/~michel/Autumn/
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Harry
I covered my Classic IV with one coat of Hipec Sun Barrier put on with a
foam roller, let dry for a couple of days, then scuff sanded and one coat of
sprayed on finish. The finish I used was Dupont Imron 4.3 HG. Low
volatiles, one part, spay on, water cleanup, unlinked polyurethane. I used
a cotton mask. Finish was touch dry in 20 minutes. I've had a piece stapled
to the fence outside for 2 years with no obvious damage.
Tim Vader
Classic IV
Subaru/ Soon to be VW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Cieslar" <hcieslar@cabletv.on.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:32 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: coverings
>
> Since reading this info on Stewart system coatings for dacron , I looked
> at their site. I really like the idea of safer material,. All others are
> potentially toxic. Even Stewart Systems needs precautions they mention.
> My question is to those who have used Steweart System and other systems is
> how time consuming is Stewarts? Filler coat up to four and top coat 5 or
> more. Seems like a lot of work. I have researched a lot and am trying to
> decide my first project. Hipec was the simplest , strongest etc . I talked
> to a few users and saw a plane which looked very good after 15 yrs.
> However the toxicity is my concern. I would need a full independent
> breathing system etc. Not in the cards for my Avid. Any advice.
> Harry Cieslar,Goderich, Ontario, Avid Magnum Project
>
>
> --
> 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR in a kitfox |
Michel,
Even if you are IFR rated an the plane has a full panel, you better be ready to
fly with no gyros. Have lost a vacuum pump and it can hose you up good if you
are fixated on your main flight instrument(s) (artificial horizon etc.). You
can watch you compass to indicate turning, airspeed to tell if you are climbing
or diving, RPM changes are great indications also. glance down to see if
you are holding the stick or yoke in an unusual position (may indicate a turning
climb or shallow dive). Most guys have a GPS on-board and most have some
sort of situational awareness screen.
I have been in IFR conditions twice in a bare panel PA12, once was in a mountain
pass. When I started in the pass at 1500' I could see the "turn" about 6 miles
out. About 1 mile into the pass a layer formed within about 1 minute that
made it hard to see the prop... I had an old Sony Pixes GPS that had a moving
map and only showed the track not real terrain features. I kept myself glued
to the bread crumb trail I had made earlier pointed the nose to the sky and firewalled
it... I broke out at 14,500 in desperate need of a new pair of shorts
as I was within a few miles of mount redoubt and really did not want to become
a permanent part of the landscape. I went in the following week and began
my Instrument training.
My instructor really loved to cover up various instruments at the most in-opportune
times just to drill it into you NOT to get fixated and to let you know
that you don't have to have a full panel to get yourself out of a tight spot and
back home as long as you keep you head on straight and don't panic.
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1260
95% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147753#147753
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
> From: Jose M. Toro [jose_m_toro@yahoo.com]
> There is going to be a next airplane. These are good news!!!
> My best wishes for both you and your wife.
And let me join Jos=E9 in wishing you and Kay the very best, Lowell! This i
s the message we have been waiting for. You will be building again!
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
do not archive
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR in a kitfox |
Michel,
I didn't avoid a bank. I was focused on staying right side up, keeping airspeed
and rate of descent constant and the ball centered. Because I wasn't concerned
about course (GPS showed no obstructions below) I did do an unintentional
180 degree, 3 minute turn.
To my knowledge, VFR "over the top" in the US is not restricted based on whether
engine is certificated or not. If it is, I made up all that stuff in my last
2 posts. ;-)
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Marco Menezes wrote:
> I had a similar experience returning from Oshkosh this August, flying
> over lake Michigan.
Thanks for sharing, Marco. I have two questions:
1) How did you keep from going in a bank if you didn't had a giro
instrument?
2) Is on-top permitted in the US with non-certified engines? It is not
in Norway. The idea is: You must always have a possible landing place
in sight. Something you can't over the clouds. Maybe it's our
mountainous terrain that dictates that.
The only time I flew on-top (against my best judgement) it was over the
fog and I knew it would be clear at arrival, it was only a round trip.
Here it is:
http://home.online.no/~michel/Autumn/
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change |
I was looking into increasing the MTOW of my model III-A from 950 to
1050
last year. I think it was Dave Fisher who sent me a drawing of an
upgrade
that included the installation of a heavier pass through tube for the
wing
struts (bottom of the plane) and also two additional frame braces in the
same area on each side of the plane...
To make a long story short, I have no appreciable welding skills and I
don't
want to strip the cloth off my plane to start hacking more tubing in. I
wouldn't have any problem with flying my floats at 1050 lb. I would
take
into consideration that I was heavier than design standards and pass on
some
more extreme manoeuvres. So far I still haven't reached the 950lb.
gross
and I still pass on extreme manoeuvres.
Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern
Campbellton, Newfoundland,
Canada
Kitfox Mod III-A, 582, B box, Ivo IFA
Aerocet 1100s
<mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> noelloveys@yahoo.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M.
Toro
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change
Mark: Just learned something new. Thanks! :-)
----- Original Message ----
From: "RRTRACK@aol.com" <RRTRACK@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:40:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox I mods / Gross weight change
Jose
You "can" change the gross weight of a certified airplane. I've done
it
already. I just sent a letter to my local FSDO requesting the change
along
with documentation to justify the change. But you cannot lower the gross
weight to meet LSA standards. Once an airplane is certified over 1320#
it
cannot be used as an LSA.
The early Avid's were 850 gross as well, but after the installation of
flapperon ballencers, the factory increased the gross to 911#.
Mark
Kitfox 5 Vixen
912UL IVO
Hartford, Wisconsin
_____
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products
<http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000300000000
01>
and top money wasters
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolt
op000
30000000002> of 2007.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 11/21/2007 12:36:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lcfitt@sbcglobal.net writes:
List,
I like the idea of a safer material as well, but a quick look at the MSDS o
n
MEK http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/BU/2-butanone.html doesn't convince me
that the "old stand" by Polyfiber system is that much of a risk regarding
health. Yes, it has a strong smell, but with the exception of that it is
fairly harmless with proper ventilation. In fact that reminds me of
something my dad told me once - PhD Chemistry. Hydrogen Sulfide is much
more toxic than Hydrogen Cyanide. The fact that we don't hear much about
exposure problems is because it smells so bad it drives the potential victi
m
to fresh air. A full breathing system for MEK based systems is way over
kill in my opinion, just open the door or maybe a couple of doors. I would
think that working with it in an enclosed work space there would be much
more risk due to the possibility of explosion and fire and that alone would
prompt me to open the doors to my hangar, shut off the pilot lights etc. an
d
just be prudent.
My now deceased Model IV was Polyfiber covered and finished with Aerothane
and based on durability reports on some of the water based systems, my next
airplane will be Polyfiber and Aerothane. I did use a respirator for the
Aerothane, but a one off project is much different than a career of coverin
g
airplanes. Again my opinion. I know some used a fresh air system and I
respect that decision. I know they do in the Kitfox factory, but again that
is a production facility with painting going on regularly with the
possibility of chronic build up of toxicity.
I do apapreciate the pioneers though. What we really need are more guys
willing to branch out and then report results. Then we will have assembled
a data base that will help all that will follow to make informed decisions.
Lowell
Hello Lowell,
I have been on the Kitfox List for many years. Still too busy to build righ
t
now, currently I lurk from time to time. Several years ago on The List we
hashed over the issues concerning MEK. In fact we covered MEK from all
possible angles.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for you Lowell but, it troubles
me to see your words: "Yes, it has a strong smell, but with the exception o
f
that it is fairly harmless with proper ventilation." You also wrote: "A
full breathing system for MEK based systems is way over kill in my opinion,
just
open the door or maybe a couple of doors."
I mean no malice to you Lowell, nor do I want to embarrass you in any way.
I just want you and others on The List to err on the safe side when it come
s
to working with MEK. I don't have a can of MEK in front of me right now bu
t,
I am sure it still warns about the fact that MEK is accumulative in your
body tissues. The body cannot rid itself of MEK. It can cause permanent b
rain,
nervous system, kidney and liver damage.
Don't misunderstand me, I like the properties of MEK based covering and
paint products for aircraft and I plan to use it to cover my Fox. But, I w
ill
use a full fresh air protection system for my eyes and lungs and gloves on
my
hands.
I wrote the following letter in '96 to EAA chapter 292 and shared it with
The List at that time. It is self explanatory.
Dear chapter 292 members:
My name is John Marzluf and I thoroughly love aviation! When a bird lands
on a tree branch, a cat will crouch down and study it carefully, twitching
it=99
s tail to and fro, eyes big and focused, well that cat is me! I h
ave been
eating, drinking, and sleeping aviation my whole life. You know what I am
talking about, it=99s in your blood, it=99s in your very soul!
I am building a Kitfox (she=99s a series five tail dragger with a Rota
x 912S)
and I belong to the Internet billboard list group for fellow Kitfox builder
s.
Here we post building and flying questions, opinions, and so forth for all
to see.
Your chapter newsletter editor, Mike Pongracz, saw a posting that I made to
my Kitfox List members concerning the safe use of aviation chemicals. He
asked me to repeat it here for everyone to read:
My younger brother, Tom grew up with the same aviation enthusiasm that I
did. Dad was a WW 11 Naval Aviator flying PBY5A Catalinas. (I still think
the
PBY is the most graceful war bird ever built) We all built model aircraft
of
all sorts.
I served in the United States Marine Corps from 1970 to 1980 working as an
avionics technician. While in Japan in 1975, I sent Tom his first radio
control system and an airplane kit with the promise that as soon as I got ho
me on
leave, we would build and fly it together. Tom was 12 or 13 at the time.
When I got home, boy was I surprised! Not only did he have it built and
flying, but he had already cut the wing in half and rejoined it with no dih
edral so
that it would roll better.
I finished my days working for Uncle Sam and went home for good in July 198
0.
Tom was building bigger, better, and faster airplanes and dreaming about
building a full scale some day. We talked about pooling our time and money
for
a Cub or Champ project. He graduated from High school and enrolled in the
local community college aviation technology program. A couple of years lat
er
he earned his A&P license. I tell you the kid was in hog heaven!
Our new A&P got a job right away working for a local aircraft service group
.
He honed his skills in every phase of aviation maintenance and soon gained
the respect of many for his fine work.
The spring of 1991 found him working for the largest aviation maintenance
group in our area. He worked evening shift with the responsibilities of
continuing the round the clock progress of annuals or engine changes or eme
rgency
repairs. His group had contracts with several of the non-hub airlines to d
o
emergency troubleshooting for flights that would have to cancel without an
A&P=99
s sign off. The job was stressful at times and he started to tell me about
his heartburn problems.
Some evenings I would stop by the hanger to visit for a few minutes (had to
get my hands on a bird feel it=99s cold metallic skin). Tom
would be tearing
down a fuel injection system and soaking the pieces in the parts washing tu
b
with MEK (Methyl Ethyl Keytone). He would scrub the parts with a brush and
bare hands and then blow them all clean and dry with shop air. MEK is grea
t
for this because it will cut through almost any deposit and dry residue fre
e.
I can still see the gleam in his eye as he hooked up each injector to the
test bench and watched it produce that perfect conical spray pattern.
Other nights I would walk in through the hanger door and be hit with a wall
of MEK fumes, while Tom did one of the things he liked best, the repair of
hanger rash on spinners, wingtips, wheel pants, etc. He wiped the work dow
n
with an MEK soaked rag, filled and sanded as necessary, a final MEK wipe do
wn
before painting, and then of course the clean up of all spray equipment wit
h,
you guessed it, MEK. All of the hanger exhaust fans were running but what
a
stench this all made. At quitting time he would wash up first with MEK at
the parts wash tub and then with some skin conditioning cleaner to replace
some
of the moisture in his hands. MEK is great to clean those dirty fingernail
s
of all of that black grease!
He confided in me in the summer of 1991 that he found the airline emergency
calls to be very stressful (holding a 737 full of late passengers and an ang
ry
flight crew to be sure their bird was air worthy). He said the heartburn
was getting to be a real problem and that over the counter antacids didn
=99t work
much anymore.
The smell of avgas used to make his day, he said, but now he found he could
n=99
t stomach it any more. Filling his car gas tank made him sick, he would
stick his nose in his sleeve and squeeze the trigger hard to get it over wi
th.
Driving behind a city bus was impossible without a dry heave or two.
I told him to see a doctor and stop eating those Beanie Weenies out of the
snack machine at work. The heartburn persisted and one night he left the
hanger and went to the emergency room with his throat =9COn fire!
=9D.
The doctors ran some tests and finally agreed that he may have an ulcer
starting up. They gave him some antacid medication to take and he said it
worked
great!
The fall of 1991 was bad for us. Tom wanted to sleep a lot and had no
interest in our airplane fun anymore. His belly was getting big and we jok
ed
about whose was the biggest.
The winter of 1991-92 was terrible. I looked at my little brother and saw
a
young man with sunken dark circles under his eyes and a thinning face that
was way out of character for him. His belly was too large for anyone to
mistake it for a beer gut, and it was lopsided on the right side! This was
a guy
who two years before, was doing handstands on a skateboard going down a
sidewalk hill. We got him into the doctor and they did a biopsy right away
. The
test results took a couple of days.
On April fools=99 day 1992 the doctor came into his hospital room and
said: =9C
I have bad news.=9D We all figured it could be bad like cancer or som
ething
and that some treatment would soon follow. Tom, always the jokester and sc
i-fi
movie buff said: =9CLay it on me doc, I can go flat-line for awhile!
=9D. The
doctor said: =9CI have very bad news=9D. He kept apologizing t
o us for having to
tell us this. Tom wiped the smile off his face. The biopsy tests showed
that Tom=99s liver was destroyed by Mucin producing Adeno Carcinoma.
That meant
that the cancer cells produce a liquid buffer around them as they grow and
his liver was an ever-growing sponge like mass of cancer. No treatment wou
ld
reverse it or cure him. His liver was swelling to enormous proportions.
The doctor said that his liver may have become cancerous from a blood borne
contaminate or maybe there was some primary cancer site that sent the cancer
to his liver through his vascular system. He suggested some tests that cou
ld
be done to see if there was a primary site somewhere. This seemed to give
us some hope. The plan was to do a complete gastrointestinal study and to
prep for that; he had to cleanse his system that night by drinking a gallon
of =9C
Go lightly=9D to flush his system out. The doctors would scope him in
the
morning.
Guys, I spent ten years in the United States Marine Corps working on our
fine Naval Aircraft. I was a real man in my little brother=99s eyes,
but I wish
more than anything else that I could re-live the night of April 1st 1992.
I
was the last one to leave his room that night. He poured himself a tall gl
ass
of that Go Lightly, raised it to me and said: =9CCheers mate!
=9D in his pretend
Aussie accent.
I turned away to hide my burning eyes, tried to swallow an apple sized lump
in my throat and somehow managed to say =9CSee ya later man=9D.
I stormed out
of his room like Judas himself and ran down the hall to the private safety o
f
my truck. You can=99t know how much I regret those few minutes. I s
o wish we
could have stayed up together that night pouring drinks for each other over
and over, pretending to be getting drunk like a couple of old war aces.
Instead, he stayed up that night drinking that horrible stuff all alone!
Sarah, Tom and Doreen=99s daughter was born that month sixteen days l
ater.
Tom was with his wife through 22 hours of labor before the doctor decided t
o do
a caesarian. The Morphine got him through that I guess.
May was a blur and June had us all taking shifts to watch over him as he la
y
in the spare bedroom at mom=99s house. We pushed the bed against the
wall and
I slept on the floor during my shift beside his bed so that if he got up in
the night, he would have to step on me to get out of the room. We couldn
=99t
allow him to roam around and hurt himself in the night. The morphine was
turning him into a monster. Strange to think back on it all now and rememb
er how
being stepped on was such an honor to me at the time.
My beloved little brother Tommy passed away early in the morning of his 30t
h
birthday, June 19th 1992 with all of us at his bedside. He is buried in ou
r
family plot beside Dad and I am just sure that they are skimming a heavenly
lake somewhere, cranking on the flap handle, trying to get that PBY up on i
t=99
s step.
Tom's widow, myself, and the rest of the family, were too grief stricken to
have my little brother's body autopsied. Many questions remain unanswered
to
this day. Although no conclusive study has yet been conducted to prove a
solid link between MEK and liver cancer, MEK and other aviation chemicals ar
e
known to cause irreversible damage to the liver, brain, and nervous system i
f
not used correctly and safely. Use a fresh air-supplied-mask and hood.
These chemicals will get into your blood and tissues through your skin, lun
gs,
and even your eyes. Your body cannot deal with them. Please build and fly
safely. I sure wish Tom could be here to see my Fox.
I know he would twitch his tail watching all of your birds!
Sincerely,
John P. Marzluf
_Kitfoxz@aol.com_ (mailto:Kitfoxz@aol.com)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't believe that MEK is quite as deadly as some believe, although
caution and ventilation is clearly advised. This link will take you to the
best information I have seen on the matter.
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/mek/health_mek.html
Anyone reading the sheet will notice the advice about it being a fairly
powerful irritant to the eyes. I think reactions are likely to vary somewhat
from person to person. I appear to be more sensitive for some reason, even a
fairly short exposure leaves my eyes feeling extremely dry and irritated,
and it lasts for days. Sort of like an eyeful of sand. It's quite
worthwhile for me to avoid it but nobody else I know has the problem to
anything close to the same degree.
Shifting between the two systems has given me the opportunity to try two in
short succession and I feel the Stewarts is much easier to use. However as
Lowell points out, longevity is unknown at this point.
Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582
do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John, I am really sorry to hear about losing your brother. In the "bad old days"
we never took toxicity seriously and loved the smells of gas, MEK, and lots
of other really bad stuff. As young A&Ps 30-40 years ago, we'd use stinky stuff
all day and then smell like it all night, using skin lotion for dried out
skin. It sounds like your brother was an extreme case, but your message is sound.
Thanks!
Fortunately, as somebody else mentioned, the non-contact cure is easy through ventilation
and frequent glove replacement. I won't use PolyFiber in the house,
but have no hesitation in using it out in a hangar or the garage or shed - with
the doors open and usually with a fan running. I just think that we've learned
and adapted. Obviously, once applied the way even close to how it should
be, the stuff is well-known, darn near bullet proof, and easy to repair. Those
are important qualities in a covering that should last 20+ years.
I looked seriously at Stewart and started calling recovering shops. I won't give
out any names, you'll have to do your own homework. The Van's RV guys swear
by the Stewart metal finishing products for their interiors and there were two
conclusions that I came to. First, all of the fabric covering systems come
to within a few hundred dollars when you're really done. Second bottom line was
that applied absolutely correctly, kept in a hangar, and away from contaminates,
Stewart's fabric covering can look great and last a long time, but it's
not for me. I did talk to some very happy Stewart-systems owners, such as Kansas
City Dawn Patrol guys. However...
I'm an A&P and started calling recovering shops to talk to mechanics with personal
experience and less emotion about "their" airplanes. There are some that
have used it more than once and won't touch it again. I was told by at least two
shop owners in different parts of the country that they found the coating failed
where avgas spills made somewhat regular contact and that they couldn't
get new coats to both adhere and/or look right unless the fabric was replaced.
One of the western shop owners said that he had to recover all of one airplane
due to staining of the belly and coating coming off the wings. Both mentioned
partial recover of two or three (my lack of notes) other airplanes. I also
heard from them and some owners that wear areas around doors and such became
a problem as the coating didn't seem as "hard" or durable as PolyFiber or epoxy
coatings. As much as I like the water-base idea, I personally stopped looking
at Stewart for fabric, although I'll probably go with it for metal interior
parts. I also heard good things about their very expensive paint that's for
high temps. BTW, the ag-operators have gone almost 100% epoxy, but they really
require health precautions (forced air and full Tyvek suits) that I don't want
to go to. I'm just recommending that you talk to as many owners as possible
before making a long-term commitment to any system.
Lowell, I am really happy to hear that there's another 'fox in you. Too bad that
you're not closer, as I'd make you a good deal on my Vixen project. Not actively
trying to sell it yet, but think I came across a flying airplane that is
looking too cheap to pass up and the wife has a "one set of wings" rule. (when
Momma's happy...)
Bob
--------
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147822#147822
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|