There is a thread in another forum that mentions that Oratex is the preferred fabric for Alaska Bush planes. I find that hard to believe as most Alaska planes are certified and the fabric currently doesn't have an STC. Also unless you are counting every ounce most owners would not strip off a fabric just to put on a pretty expensive new skin.
There is a lengthy thread or two about Oratex over on the SuperCub forum. Some love it. Others don't. Like all coverings, there are lots of opinions. So far, the FAA has not approved it for certificated aircraft, but a number of Experimentals have used it. FWIW, it is approved for use on certificated aircraft in Canada and Europe.
I can't speak for the quality, value or longevity of the product, but one can save roughly 50% or better in the weight of covering and finishing materials. On a typical SuperCub, depending on the quality and amount of build up of the previous finish, one can save roughly 20 - 50# by using Oratex. So it is a favorite among the STOL competitors. I don't think one could truthfully say it is preferred for Alaska Bush Planes since it's not legal to use on any of the certificated planes at this point in time. Can't even say it is a favorite among E-AB Cubs or Cub Clones. But it is gaining in popularity and those that have used it seem to like it.
-Cub Builder
Are these two materials similar? I am speaking of a product called Solartex.
http://shop.balsausa.com/category_s/119.htm
Out of curiosity, what's the reasons given by those who don't like it? Other than price, it sounds pretty good. Got a guy in the Fly Baby group using it on his airplane, and it looks like it didn't take much time and it's looking very nice.Originally Posted by cub builder
Ron Wanttaja
Mostly cause it's not what they have been using all along, so is unfamiliar. If I was needing to recover my SuperCub Clone, I would certainly want to evaluate Oratex as a potential cover for it. For me, one of the key components of this system is that it already has a base color as part of the fabric, so all you have to do for paint is spray the trim colors and paint the metal parts. That's a whole lot less painting to be done at the hangar and a lot less aggravation for my hangar neighbors. But I would have to add it up and see what the price point would be vs. working with either traditional dopes or Stewart system.
Another criticism is that the longevity of the Oratex fabric is an unknown. Much like certificated engines vs auto engines debate, we have many decades of experience with 10s of thousands of aircraft with traditional dopes, Polyfiber, and urethane finishes. Oratex makes claims of good longevity, and I have no reason to doubt them, but there simply aren't any planes out there with 30 and 40 year old Oratex, so nobody knows how well it's going to hold up to real world conditions. Recovering your plane is a huge investment of time and money to bet on an unknown. So Oratex doesn't get an immediate acceptance by all. But it does have it's up side and certainly shows good potential.
-Cub Builder
Thanks, CB. I do like the process, and not having covered/painted an airplane before, the Oratex seems considerably less daunting. Folks were worried about the synthetic fabrics when they came out in the '60s, too...today, the thought of covering with Grade A Cotton wouldn't even enter most folks' minds.
The only drawback from my point of view is the expense; it's hard to justify ~$8,000 worth of covering/coloring on a plane worth ~$10,000. Though if it were a new build I'd consider it.
Ron Wanttaja
Like Ron, I can see both the positives and the negatives.
Pro - very light weight and while a little fussy not that hard to cover with. No painting required. Enough of a track record to show that it's not dangerous to the pilot (no peeling off in flight).
Con - very expensive when compared to other covering systems. The finish in the raw isn't pristine - the edges of the tapes, for example, are really going to show as edges. Note - for a guy like me that doesn't matter (I like seeing them), but I've seen some aircraft where the pinked edges are sanded and painted in such a way as to be almost invisible.
If weight were really a huge concern - for STOL or to keep an ultralight honest - it might be a great way to go. Assuming one wasn't going to slap household latex paint on their plane, it might be a wash in the cost difference in painting - depending on the paint job one wanted, of course.
The question I have is the level of color fastness of the material. Since it's not painted, any patch is going to be the factory-fresh color and might stand out like a sore thumb against the weathered material.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Other that those cons mentioned, which are to me valid, the biggest problem I have with it is the very limited choice of color. Paying that price to cover an aircraft and having to settle for very common colors would kill it for me.
Bill H.
It can still be painted. You lose some of the weight savings them, but if you can use the fabric base color and only paint some trim areas, it wouldn't be that bad/
The biggest complaint I've heard, other than the cost, is that it's not shiny... you can see the fabric texture; it's dyed fabric, not painted. And it can take a long time to arrive... I waited forever for samples for a repair (Oratex can be used to repair almost any other fabric system), and by the time they arrived I had given up and used something else. Hopefully they've got a better supply pipeline now.
Similar, I guess, but Solartex has the heat sensitive adhesive pre-applied on the entire fabric, whereas with Oratex you paint the adhesive where you need it, let it dry, and then iron it on.
One point of order...Oratex has the adhesive pre-applied to the fabric AND you paint the structure with it.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft
Reply With Quote
