Latex Paint for Your Homebuilt

[Aaron Novak]

A friend just painted his Bi-Plane a year or so ago. He lurks around this site but never posts, maybe he will post a comment here. I'm not real sure what paint he used but he used a fresh air supply fed through a hood and he still had an allergic reaction to the paint. This was so bad it made him stop working for sometime. I hope he chimes in on this.
He wore a paint suit and all protection they call for. Just a heads up, some of this stuff is very bad on your health.

You bring up a good point. Many paints, especially those that are polyisocyanate crosslinked, are not very nice to deal with. The simple enamels, dopes, and dissolved vinyls (polytone etc) have a lot going for them in that reguard. I have done enough painting do develop sensitivity to the "modern" auto paints, and so nowdays stick to the materials listed above if I can. I love the look of rubbed out enamel, or dope, and the security of knowing a simple charcoal filter takes care of the organic and hydro solvents used in them without the need for "fresh air".

[martymayes]

Realisticly though in the grand scheme of covering your homebuilt, what is the cost difference between using a traditional topcoat vs something else? Maybe $250.....maybe?

apparently it's enough that many builders are doing it.

[Aaron Novak]

Well thats why I am asking, is it a real or just percieved cost savings? The fellow that the airfield is named after on which the EAA holds its yearly convention lost his life due to mixing paints and finishes in his covering system. So was it worth it? At what point does the pursuit of saving a buck become dangerous? Experimentation to increase performance, or set records holds a certain merit of bravery due to the risk, doing the same to lower cost at ones (and their passengers) safety has a merit of foolishness.

[rwanttaja]

Well thats why I am asking, is it a real or just percieved cost savings? The fellow that the airfield is named after on which the EAA holds its yearly convention lost his life due to mixing paints and finishes in his covering system. So was it worth it? At what point does the pursuit of saving a buck become dangerous? Experimentation to increase performance, or set records holds a certain merit of bravery due to the risk, doing the same to lower cost at ones (and their passengers) safety has a merit of foolishness.

I don't look at it for cost savings, but for being tremendously more convenient. I had to replace a gear leg on my Fly Baby ~12 years ago (spraying it with Rust-Oleum from a conventional sprayer); I'm STILL scraping overspray off my truck windshield despite drop cloths everywhere. As others have mentioned, many conventional products are bad for you... the stuff my plane is painted with forms cyanide if it gets in your lungs. Practically need a full bunny suit to apply it.

Guy at my airport got booted from his hangar; he sealed it up real well (he thought) and sprayed his Bellanca. Overspray crept through the holes and nailed the planes in the adjacent hangars. He quickly took responsibility and made the other owners whole, but it was a violation of airport rules.

Finally...well, it smells. When I painted my gear leg in the (attached) garage, the smell was apparent all through the house.

Contrast that with latex. Applied with a roller or brush, not a sprayer. Non-toxic. No chemical smell. No worries about poisoning, no overspray, buy it at the local hardware store, no hazardous shipping costs, clean up with soap and water.

On the other hand...well, of course there are issues regarding comparative durability. But I posted a friend's tale of applying latex to his Fly Baby (Sam also referenced the site). On hte Fly Baby mailing list, Drew has always been open about his process, his concerns, and issues with his airplane. It's been ~five years, and he STILL hasn't seen any major problems with paint adhesion.

I'm a engineer with 30 years' experience with a major aerospace company. The pay is, ummm, good. No kids, no car payments, no old loans being paid off. A mortgage on the house, but we're making lump sum payments to have it paid off by the time I retire.

If I decided I was going to re-paint my Fly Baby, spending $1,000 extra just for the paint would not be an issue.

But it's not the way *I* would do it. Instead of hauling the parts home, sealing my garage, evicting the cars to the ourdoors for the duration, swathing myself in protective gear and listening to the shrieking air compressor, I'd prop the parts up in my hangar, don a comfortable old shirt and pants, tune in the classic radio station, and grab a beer, and pick up my roller.

Hal, you're invited. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

There are enough latex finish airplanes flying to dispel the "dangerous" or "foolish" notion. Those planes are not raining out of the sky. There are some non-standard finishes that are over 20 yrs old now and they look fine. Once upon a time, there was a very popular 'fox' of a 'kit' (plane) that used an under cambered wing and held the fabric to the ribs with glue, despite the fabric/covering suppliers stressing that method of attachment was unacceptable. Some of those are still flying, without rib stitching. Go figure.

I will certainly take the alternative route if I build or need to recover a low/slow homebuilt. But then I'd really go out on a limb and use polyester fabric that does not have that life saving ink stamp every 30 linear inches as well. Everyone chooses the level of risk they are comfortable with. If someone feels a professionally applied certified system is the only way to go, by all means, go for it.

[Aaron Novak]

I don't look at it for cost savings, but for being tremendously more convenient. I had to replace a gear leg on my Fly Baby ~12 years ago (spraying it with Rust-Oleum from a conventional sprayer); I'm STILL scraping overspray off my truck windshield despite drop cloths everywhere. As others have mentioned, many conventional products are bad for you... the stuff my plane is painted with forms cyanide if it gets in your lungs. Practically need a full bunny suit to apply it.

Guy at my airport got booted from his hangar; he sealed it up real well (he thought) and sprayed his Bellanca. Overspray crept through the holes and nailed the planes in the adjacent hangars. He quickly took responsibility and made the other owners whole, but it was a violation of airport rules.

Finally...well, it smells. When I painted my gear leg in the (attached) garage, the smell was apparent all through the house.

Contrast that with latex. Applied with a roller or brush, not a sprayer. Non-toxic. No chemical smell. No worries about poisoning, no overspray, buy it at the local hardware store, no hazardous shipping costs, clean up with soap and water.

On the other hand...well, of course there are issues regarding comparative durability. But I posted a friend's tale of applying latex to his Fly Baby (Sam also referenced the site). On hte Fly Baby mailing list, Drew has always been open about his process, his concerns, and issues with his airplane. It's been ~five years, and he STILL hasn't seen any major problems with paint adhesion.

I'm a engineer with 30 years' experience with a major aerospace company. The pay is, ummm, good. No kids, no car payments, no old loans being paid off. A mortgage on the house, but we're making lump sum payments to have it paid off by the time I retire.

If I decided I was going to re-paint my Fly Baby, spending $1,000 extra just for the paint would not be an issue.

But it's not the way *I* would do it. Instead of hauling the parts home, sealing my garage, evicting the cars to the ourdoors for the duration, swathing myself in protective gear and listening to the shrieking air compressor, I'd prop the parts up in my hangar, don a comfortable old shirt and pants, tune in the classic radio station, and grab a beer, and pick up my roller.

Hal, you're invited. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Ron,
Dont get me wrong, I get the appeal of something like latex. Quite honestly due to health reasons I would love to see someone put together a system to use it, but having some measure of control over the material. Of course you could always brush dope on as well if overspray was the big problem, it was done that way for years and looks beautiful rubbed out. In reality something along the lines of a latex emulsion type material are probably better suited for fabric than a synthetic enamel.

[Sam Buchanan]

Realisticly though in the grand scheme of covering your homebuilt, what is the cost difference between using a traditional topcoat vs something else? Maybe $250.....maybe?

You haven't priced the Polyfiber system lately.

If you follow the STC for Polyfiber, there will be upwards of a dozen coats of finish. The materials for a simple little airplane will cost ~$1500-$2000. Here is a materials estimator from the ACS site:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...s/material.php

Their estimate for an ultralight involves 24 gallons (!!!) of material! Only 38 gallons for a heavier aircraft. Some of this stuff is close to $100/gallon.

I cannot justify that kind of paint money (or weight!) on a $5,000-$10,000 airframe when the latex system has worked very well for over twenty years.

Proven latex durability, airworthy, unlimited color selection, no spraying required...leave $2000 in my pocket and my lungs right-side-in...no brainer.

[1600vw]

Can't you thin this latex paint with wind shield washer fluid and spray it?

[Aaron Novak]

Can't you thin this latex paint with wind shield washer fluid and spray it?

Ehhhh its a risky business. Depending of the chemistry of the latex emulsion, thinning it can cause severe performance reductions. For something like an R/C model sure, and thats what I do frequently. However if you are at all concerned about the weathering performance it is something that should be tested very carefully. You also have to be careful from an equipment standpoint as latex emulsions are corrosive to aluminum and can damage paint guns quickly. Equipment designed to handle waterbourne finishes would be the best choice.

[1600vw]

Ehhhh its a risky business. Depending of the chemistry of the latex emulsion, thinning it can cause severe performance reductions. For something like an R/C model sure, and thats what I do frequently. However if you are at all concerned about the weathering performance it is something that should be tested very carefully. You also have to be careful from an equipment standpoint as latex emulsions are corrosive to aluminum and can damage paint guns quickly. Equipment designed to handle waterbourne finishes would be the best choice.

Is this why we see this equipment made from plastics?