Latex Paint for Your Homebuilt

[Charlie Becker]

Join us for a webinar on Wednesday, 10/9/2013 on using Latex paint on your homebuilt.

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/568403578!

Presenter: Malcolm Morrison, EAA Chapter 1327 President
Latex paint is a viable, non-toxic, and inexpensive alternative to traditional products for finishing homebuilt aircraft. This presentation will cover the history, tools, and techniques for applying ordinary latex paint, and will show you how to achieve a durable, high quality finish that you can be proud of. Malcolm Morrison EAA Chapter 1327 president has refinished several airplanes using both traditional products and latex paint. His experimenting with latex paint has led to some surprisingly nice finishes using inexpensive tools and simple techniques.

[rwanttaja]

Join us for a webinar on Wednesday, 10/9/2013 on using Latex paint on your homebuilt.

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/568403578!

Presenter: Malcolm Morrison, EAA Chapter 1327 President
Latex paint is a viable, non-toxic, and inexpensive alternative to traditional products for finishing homebuilt aircraft. This presentation will cover the history, tools, and techniques for applying ordinary latex paint, and will show you how to achieve a durable, high quality finish that you can be proud of. Malcolm Morrison EAA Chapter 1327 president has refinished several airplanes using both traditional products and latex paint. His experimenting with latex paint has led to some surprisingly nice finishes using inexpensive tools and simple techniques.

Sounds cool. One of our Fly Baby guys repainted his airplane with latex, and is very happy with how it turned out.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/latex.html

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Very cool - and right on time as I'll be into covering territory on the Nieuport soon enough.

Sharon and Dick Stark's Morane is painted with latex and looks incredible - one would never know it's household exterior if one wasn't told.

[bookmaker]

Wow, I saw this just in time. I am going to try to hook up. I have used latex for R/C planes and plan to use it on my N17 project. Any tips I can pick up will sure be appreciated.

Dale

[Frank Giger]

It was a great presentation - right on point, well organized, and put in simple terms for knuckleheads like me. Sure filled in a lot of blank spots in what I had read about using latex.

I was also really impressed that Mr. Morrison balanced the need to show his excellent (okay, scarily perfect) workmanship with a "no big deal, you're looking at the end of a lot of error filled trials, you can do this, too." And that he freely admitted that while his techniques have given him bowling alley shiny finishes, there's other paths and finishes that one can achieve.

Sadly, I had to leave during the Q&A session, so I missed giving formal feedback.

[Charlie Becker]

For those of you who missed this excellent presentation, here is a link to the recording:

http://bcove.me/hkevu2sh

[Aaron Novak]

The only thing that I would like to see addressed is the control, or lack thereof, of the material itself. I guess that has been my big hang-up with using anything from a hardware store is the fact there is no control over what the material actually is.

[Mike M]

The only thing that I would like to see addressed is the control, or lack thereof, of the material itself. I guess that has been my big hang-up with using anything from a hardware store is the fact there is no control over what the material actually is.

Uh, here's a clue. The label says "paint" it probably is. The best paint the manufacturer can make for the stated purpose and the price constraint while complying with EPA and OSHA regs. There are a lot of paint companies, the ones that do not provide $ value fail. So there is a LOT of control over what goes in the can. and we can learn some about it from the OSHA statements. Now as to whether any particular substance is suitable for a use it was neither made nor tested for, well, your mileage may vary. Refer to the first word in this organization's name.

And THAT is where the FUN starts!

[Aaron Novak]

Uh, here's a clue. The label says "paint" it probably is. The best paint the manufacturer can make for the stated purpose and the price constraint while complying with EPA and OSHA regs. There are a lot of paint companies, the ones that do not provide $ value fail. So there is a LOT of control over what goes in the can. and we can learn some about it from the OSHA statements. Now as to whether any particular substance is suitable for a use it was neither made nor tested for, well, your mileage may vary. Refer to the first word in this organization's name.

And THAT is where the FUN starts!
Its "who" has the control that is the issue. Buying an off the shelf product that is made to a performance specification and not a material specification gives total material control to the manufacturer. The MSDS sheets dont mean squat. The "E" refers to experimental. Experiments by their vary nature require controls, and variables. When the material or process you are testing is itself a variable, the test is useless and pointless as the data is flawed. Do you see my point? I do not argue the technical attributes of a coating material, but you cant test and validate with something you have no control over.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Therefore begs the question - do any of the "paints" we use have the level of controls you aspire to have? The house paint companies produce millions of gallons of the same paint (base) where the aircraft industry produces a few thousand. So if I pull out a can of simple, well proven, single part paint from a big box or buy a system of paints from an aircraft finishing company that has 3 or 4 different layers each with different thinners and catalysts all of which are subject to the painter's whim in mixing, equipment use, temperature, humidity..... they both have the same variability?

[Jim Heffelfinger]

BTW - there are different levels sheen of clear acrylic paint. BTW - Latex is a misnomer - they are all 100% acrylic if it says Latex.
http://www.pnta.com/scenic/paint/clear-acrylic/?utm_source=googl
e&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping&gclid=CJ-V17zxm7oCFS_ZQgoddn0ARQ (http://www.pnta.com/scenic/paint/clear-acrylic/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping&gclid=CJ-V17zxm7oCFS_ZQgoddn0ARQ)

[rwanttaja]

Therefore begs the question - do any of the "paints" we use have the level of controls you aspire to have? The house paint companies produce millions of gallons of the same paint (base) where the aircraft industry produces a few thousand. So if I pull out a can of simple, well proven, single part paint from a big box or buy a system of paints from an aircraft finishing company that has 3 or 4 different layers each with different thinners and catalysts all of which are subject to the painter's whim in mixing, equipment use, temperature, humidity..... they both have the same variability?

Plus the fact that the aviation paint might have been sitting on the bottom of a pallet in a warehouse for gawds know how long, while the stuff at Lowes' is pretty fresh.

Ron Wanttaja

[Aaron Novak]

Plus the fact that the aviation paint might have been sitting on the bottom of a pallet in a warehouse for gawds know how long, while the stuff at Lowes' is pretty fresh.

Ron Wanttaja

Actually any material that has to conform to an actual formula or material specification is fine by me for testing. What I do not like at all is someone confusing a brand with a specification. Dutch-Boy max-bond exterior.....is not a material specification, and what is in that gallon jug is anyones guess. Performance specifications do not mean anything outside of the specific test done. The formulation could change at any time, with no notice given, and when used outside of the scope of the performance testing, the suitability cannot be predicted. Without material control, you cannot do testing to dertermine the suitability of anything, for anything unless you have a performance test to validate every single batch, which is fine too. If someone wanted to develop, test, validate and get approval (if needed) of a covering system using a "latex" type system I think thats great. But that would require control of the physical materials, and in the low volumes that would be used, the price would increase. In all honesty, anything but that, would be like telling someone to weld with coat hangar.


P.S. Ron, you cannot control how something is treated after it leaves the manufacturer. That is a seperate issue that does not at all relate to the material control of a product. And if you want to talk control of your product sitting on the shelves, better hope your Lowes paint never froze....but im sure they would destroy it if it had....:P

[Sam Buchanan]

Actually any material that has to conform to an actual formula or material specification is fine by me for testing. What I do not like at all is someone confusing a brand with a specification. Dutch-Boy max-bond exterior.....is not a material specification, and what is in that gallon jug is anyones guess. Performance specifications do not mean anything outside of the specific test done. The formulation could change at any time, with no notice given, and when used outside of the scope of the performance testing, the suitability cannot be predicted. Without material control, you cannot do testing to dertermine the suitability of anything, for anything unless you have a performance test to validate every single batch, which is fine too. If someone wanted to develop, test, validate and get approval (if needed) of a covering system using a "latex" type system I think thats great. But that would require control of the physical materials, and in the low volumes that would be used, the price would increase. In all honesty, anything but that, would be like telling someone to weld with coat hangar.


P.S. Ron, you cannot control how something is treated after it leaves the manufacturer. That is a seperate issue that does not at all relate to the material control of a product. And if you want to talk control of your product sitting on the shelves, better hope your Lowes paint never froze....but im sure they would destroy it if it had....:P

I have latex paint on my Legal Eagle. The plane is a one-off, welded and glued together by a builder with no formal training in aircraft construction, and with no basis of quality control other than what I am willing to risk when I fly it. The engine is a 1/2 VW, highly fabricated and built to no specification. The fabric installation consist of uncertificated fabric installed by a builder with no formal training in fabric installation, so no control specifications.

Let's see...name brand latex paint with the highest price the manufacturer offers and pulled from a batch of who knows how many thousands of gallons with the manufacturer's reputation at stake.

Me thinks the latex paint has the most highly developed control process of any component of my plane!

Let's get real. :cool:

[Aaron Novak]

I have latex paint on my Legal Eagle. The plane is a one-off, welded and glued together by a builder with no formal training in aircraft construction, and with no basis of quality control other than what I am willing to risk when I fly it. The engine is a 1/2 VW, highly fabricated and built to no specification. The fabric installation consist of uncertificated fabric installed by a builder with no formal training in fabric installation, so no control specifications.

Let's see...name brand latex paint with the highest price the manufacturer offers and pulled from a batch of who knows how many thousands of gallons with the manufacturer's reputation at stake.

Me thinks the latex paint has the most highly developed control process of any component of my plane!

Let's get real. :cool:


Sam,
You are missing my point. Its not YOU im concerned about, but rather the people that follow YOU by example. Say YOU used ABC brand paint on your project, and it has worked well for years. YOU tell someone about it and how great ABC is. THEY go buy the same ABC brand paint, not knowing that some part of the formula has changed since the can and label are the same, and proceed to use it based on YOUR results from what they think is the exact same material. The slight formula change makes no difference when used on wood or composite material ( the indended substrates ), but instead reacts with the adhesive used to glue the fabric on ( never tested by the paint manufacturer ). Paint formulas are constantly changing in the "house paint" market, and since the end useage here is completely different than anything the manufacturer would test for, that is where the danger comes in. If YOU want to do the testing and experimentation on a batch of material YOU bought to determine its suitability for YOU, thats great. However I think it is completely careless and dangerous to suggest a product that you cannot assure the composition of.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

I use Tidy Cat litter under my tires to get my car moving after being stuck in the snow.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government. Examples of
analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world
analytic products as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information.
Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of any U.S. government entity

[Jim Heffelfinger]

A quick check of Mr. Novak's prior posts clearly define a line of thinking that is emblematic of his quest for process controls and exactness.
It is true Mr. Novak - all you say.

[I_FLY_LOW]

What part of "experimental" does someone not get, here?

[bookmaker]

Common sense goes a long way here. I have no problem at all painting my 85 mph Nieuport 17 with latex paint. It will be hangared and flys slow. If I was building a 300 mph rocket sled, my common sense says I might better invest in a more proven finish for aircraft of that speed factor.

As builders, we must make many decisions based on our personal anlaysis of the risk.

PS: Let's play nice here.

Dale

[Sam Buchanan]

Sam,
You are missing my point. Its not YOU im concerned about, but rather the people that follow YOU by example. Say YOU used ABC brand paint on your project, and it has worked well for years. YOU tell someone about it and how great ABC is. THEY go buy the same ABC brand paint, not knowing that some part of the formula has changed since the can and label are the same, and proceed to use it based on YOUR results from what they think is the exact same material. The slight formula change makes no difference when used on wood or composite material ( the indended substrates ), but instead reacts with the adhesive used to glue the fabric on ( never tested by the paint manufacturer ). Paint formulas are constantly changing in the "house paint" market, and since the end useage here is completely different than anything the manufacturer would test for, that is where the danger comes in. If YOU want to do the testing and experimentation on a batch of material YOU bought to determine its suitability for YOU, thats great. However I think it is completely careless and dangerous to suggest a product that you cannot assure the composition of.

Let me begin by saying that I find the insinuation that what I have posted is "completely careless and dangerous" personally offensive and insulting. Those that have used my services as an EAA Technical Counselor and friend to a multitude of builders would also be offended by that statement.

Now....having gotten that out of the way, here are some thoughts concerning the use of latex paint for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft:

We are indeed talking EXPERIMENTAL aviation on this forum. If a builder is not comfortable with the latex process, or it doesn't meet his personal risk management....then don't use it. Latex paint is not for every builder or every aircraft. It has been adopted primarily for inexpensive, slow aircraft where spending upwards of 25% of the airframe cost in finishing materials is not practical. If I was building a Bearhawk, J-3 clone, or other $30,000 airframe, or an airframe designed for high cruise speed, latex would not be my choice. Resale value of a more expensive airframe would be impacted by the use of latex paint because not all buyers would accept that finish.

My personal experience with latex paint on inexpensive and slow aircraft covers a span of twenty years. Latex was first introduced to the low-n-slow community a few years prior to my first project. There is a lot of field history on latex paint, and it has proven to have a good track record. But, it was controversial when first introduced to experimental aviation and remains a subject that generates opposing opinions.

The presenter of the webinar that began this thread, and my personal experience, does not drive anyone exclusively toward a particular brand but instead presents a process. I have used various brands of latex over twenty years and have found all of them to meet my expectations. I do, however, recommend buying the premium level of latex paint regardless of brand. A premium grade of primer is also important for UV protection and adhesion. These recommendations are apparent to those who actually watched the webinar.

I have not seen any evidence of incompatibility of latex with PolyTac adhesive. The few times I have had opportunity to remove lightweight latex-finished fabric that was attached with PolyTac has resulted in the fabric tearing instead of the glue joints failing.

So....there is considerable field history to support the use of latex paint. But if a builder doesn't want to use it for whatever reason...use something else. But please don't denigrate the users of latex just because it doesn't meet your personal standards.

[Aaron Novak]

Let me begin by saying that I find the insinuation that what I have posted is "completely careless and dangerous" personally offensive and insulting. Those that have used my services as an EAA Technical Counselor and friend to a multitude of builders would also be offended by that statement.

Now....having gotten that out of the way, here are some thoughts concerning the use of latex paint for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft:

We are indeed talking EXPERIMENTAL aviation on this forum. If a builder is not comfortable with the latex process, or it doesn't meet his personal risk management....then don't use it. Latex paint is not for every builder or every aircraft. It has been adopted primarily for inexpensive, slow aircraft where spending upwards of 25% of the airframe cost in finishing materials is not practical. If I was building a Bearhawk, J-3 clone, or other $30,000 airframe, or an airframe designed for high cruise speed, latex would not be my choice. Resale value of a more expensive airframe would be impacted by the use of latex paint because not all buyers would accept that finish.

My personal experience with latex paint on inexpensive and slow aircraft covers a span of twenty years. Latex was first introduced to the low-n-slow community a few years prior to my first project. There is a lot of field history on latex paint, and it has proven to have a good track record. But, it was controversial when first introduced to experimental aviation and remains a subject that generates opposing opinions.

The presenter of the webinar that began this thread, and my personal experience, does not drive anyone exclusively toward a particular brand but instead presents a process. I have used various brands of latex over twenty years and have found all of them to meet my expectations. I do, however, recommend buying the premium level of latex paint regardless of brand. A premium grade of primer is also important for UV protection and adhesion. These recommendations are apparent to those who actually watched the webinar.

I have not seen any evidence of incompatibility of latex with PolyTac adhesive. The few times I have had opportunity to remove lightweight latex-finished fabric that was attached with PolyTac has resulted in the fabric tearing instead of the glue joints failing.

So....there is considerable field history to support the use of latex paint. But if a builder doesn't want to use it for whatever reason...use something else. But please don't denigrate the users of latex just because it doesn't meet your personal standards.

Sam,
Sorry I was not clear, when I stated "YOU" I was referring not to you as a person specificly, but as a component of a dialogue of information. If that makes any sense. It was never intended as a personal attack. You did however bring up what is my biggest gripe with the thought process going on here reguarding something like this. Simply put your past experience is meaningless for future decisions unless you can assure the material you are using has not changed. If you find fault with the previous logic, I would like to know how.


P.S. I do use "latex" paint quite a bit, on everything from my house, to equipment, to model aircraft. So I have nothing against the material technology at all.

[Sam Buchanan]

Sam,
Sorry I was not clear, when I stated "YOU" I was referring not to you as a person specificly, but as a component of a dialogue of information. If that makes any sense. It was never intended as a personal attack. You did however bring up what is my biggest gripe with the thought process going on here reguarding something like this. Simply put your past experience is meaningless for future decisions unless you can assure the material you are using has not changed. If you find fault with the previous logic, I would like to know how.


P.S. I do use "latex" paint quite a bit, on everything from my house, to equipment, to model aircraft. So I have nothing against the material technology at all.

I don't want to belabor this point, but in the case of using latex paints for low-n-slow airplanes, I think the logic you referred to is indeed faulty. I understand the point you are trying to make but I don't think it is reason to abandon latex paint in the real world.

I agree that formulations may change over time as paint manufacturers improve their product. But regardless of the changes, latex paint in general continues to work very well for this application, probably even better than in years past (adhesion and UV protection). The changes made over the years have not turned it into something that no longer works in our application.

As long as latex paint continues to be "latex paint" with characteristics we recognize based on previous experience, I think it is a good option for our experimental aircraft.

[Aaron Novak]

I don't want to belabor this point, but in the case of using latex paints for low-n-slow airplanes, I think the logic you referred to is indeed faulty. I understand the point you are trying to make but I don't think it is reason to abandon latex paint in the real world.

I agree that formulations may change over time as paint manufacturers improve their product. But regardless of the changes, latex paint in general continues to work very well for this application, probably even better than in years past (adhesion and UV protection). The changes made over the years have not turned it into something that no longer works in our application.

As long as latex paint continues to be "latex paint" with characteristics we recognize based on previous experience, I think it is a good option for our experimental aircraft.

Sam,
Well I guess we will have to disaggree on the logic then. And thats ok. I would however suggest to anyone, that when using something that has unknown chemistry ( be it paint, welding rod, adhesives etc ), that the suitability of it for a given application be derrived from testing the actual material batch to your satisfaction before use. That is just plain common sense, or should be.

[Trackwelder]

my only real complaint, is it never was really explained how you would repair a laex paint job, I had bought an aircraft that had originally been coated in dope, then was painted was painted with latex, only half of it was done well, so when I washed it most of the paint blew off and I wound up having to recover, it was a good idea as there were some repairs that needed to be made but how do you fix a tear in a latex paint job, with polytone it is easy,, but after the seminar I still didn't know how to repair latex I will stick with polytone.

[Sam Buchanan]

my only real complaint, is it never was really explained how you would repair a laex paint job, I had bought an aircraft that had originally been coated in dope, then was painted was painted with latex, only half of it was done well, so when I washed it most of the paint blew off and I wound up having to recover, it was a good idea as there were some repairs that needed to be made but how do you fix a tear in a latex paint job, with polytone it is easy,, but after the seminar I still didn't know how to repair latex I will stick with polytone.

Here is one of the best web sites I've found on latex paint:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/latex.html

About 1/2 way down the page latex repairs are discussed. Xylene will dissolve latex and repairs can be made using traditional techniques.

[bookmaker]

Although this is not a latex paint comment, it is related to painting with non-traditional aircraft paint systems.

Last weekend I attended the SouthEast Regional Fly In (SERFI) in Evergreen, AL, Nice weather and good turnout. One extremely nice aircraft that got my attention was a Lycoming 0-235 powered Pietenpol. The overall look and finish was exceptional. (It won an award in category). What really struck me was the paint. It was extremely smooth and professional looking. I asked the builder what paint he used and he said Rustoleum enamel. I about fell over. This was not the spray cans, but the paint in a can that he sprayed with a gun. He said he used the Rustoleum aluminum first directly on the fabric as a filler and UV blocker, then sprayed the red and yellow over that.

I tell you, it is something to look into.

Dale

[I_FLY_LOW]

Although this is not a latex paint comment, it is related to painting with non-traditional aircraft paint systems.

Last weekend I attended the SouthEast Regional Fly In (SERFI) in Evergreen, AL, Nice weather and good turnout. One extremely nice aircraft that got my attention was a Lycoming 0-235 powered Pietenpol. The overall look and finish was exceptional. (It won an award in category). What really struck me was the paint. It was extremely smooth and professional looking. I asked the builder what paint he used and he said Rustoleum enamel. I about fell over. This was not the spray cans, but the paint in a can that he sprayed with a gun. He said he used the Rustoleum aluminum first directly on the fabric as a filler and UV blocker, then sprayed the red and yellow over that.

I tell you, it is something to look into.

Dale

Didja get any pics???

[bookmaker]

Yes, I did get a few photos, but I haven't downloaded them yet. I'll do that this evening.

[Sam Buchanan]

Although this is not a latex paint comment, it is related to painting with non-traditional aircraft paint systems.

Last weekend I attended the SouthEast Regional Fly In (SERFI) in Evergreen, AL, Nice weather and good turnout. One extremely nice aircraft that got my attention was a Lycoming 0-235 powered Pietenpol. The overall look and finish was exceptional. (It won an award in category). What really struck me was the paint. It was extremely smooth and professional looking. I asked the builder what paint he used and he said Rustoleum enamel. I about fell over. This was not the spray cans, but the paint in a can that he sprayed with a gun. He said he used the Rustoleum aluminum first directly on the fabric as a filler and UV blocker, then sprayed the red and yellow over that.

I tell you, it is something to look into.

Dale

My MiniMax was topcoated with Rustoleum. I used latex primer on bare fabric then a couple of coats of Rustoleum thinned with mineral spirits shot with a gun. It was a three color paint job and turned out very nicely with a satin gloss finish. The plane was only in service a couple of years before a friend tested it to destruction, but the finish never had any problems. Photos here:

http://thervjournal.com/hanger.html (http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/hanger.html)

Entire paint job cost less than $75.

[bookmaker]

Ouch! Glad the "tester" didn't get hurt. Looked nice.

[Aaron Novak]

Ouch! Glad the "tester" didn't get hurt. Looked nice.

At best using a synthetic modified alkyd like R-O is a short term finish. The material looses flexability fairly quickly and will fail on fabric. On metal parts it is fine and has been used for years. Fabric though.....bad idea. Nothing against R-O as a product, but the type of material itself is completely wrong.

[bookmaker]

Pietenpol photos. Painted with Rustoleum.

3381


3383

3384

[Mike Switzer]

At best using a synthetic modified alkyd like R-O is a short term finish. The material looses flexability fairly quickly and will fail on fabric. On metal parts it is fine and has been used for years. Fabric though.....bad idea. Nothing against R-O as a product, but the type of material itself is completely wrong.

Since when is Rustoleum a "synthetic modified alkyd"? (unless the formula has changed???) I thought it was a fairly basic oil based (fish oil if I am not mistaken) enamel. It is a bit heavy to use on aircraft if you don't thin it, but my first truck was painted in Rustoleum (Ford Tractor Blue) & it didn't rust before I was hit by an idiot driver several years later in Terrible Hole, IN.

[Aaron Novak]

Since when is Rustoleum a "synthetic modified alkyd"? (unless the formula has changed???) I thought it was a fairly basic oil based (fish oil if I am not mistaken) enamel. It is a bit heavy to use on aircraft if you don't thin it, but my first truck was painted in Rustoleum (Ford Tractor Blue) & it didn't rust before I was hit by an idiot driver several years later in Terrible Hole, IN.

Mike,
It always has been. Only one of the primers contains "fish oil" and that is the "damp proof rusty metal primer". When they say it is an "oil" based paint, they are referring to plant oils, not fish. The plant oils are broken down into poly and tri-glycerides, and those are further modified for the resins in the paint. As normally used it is an oxidizing type curing finish that uses metallic salts and atmospheric oxygen to cure. It can however also be crosslinked with a polyisocyanate to cure faster and have better UV resistance. Synthetic enamels like R-O have been used since the 1930's for aviation, especially in WW2, however it was found to be unsuitable for fabric, hence the use of dopes on fabric. The longevity is just not there, even with "flex" additives.

[1600vw]

I had to do a repair on my wing and needed to touch up the paint after the repair. I also did a few small patches and needed these area's touched up. So what to do. I went to my local auto paint store that I purchased all my paint when building my hotrod.
Talked with the man and he had just what I needed to do a touch up. This was kinda a test anyway. I did this two years ago and she has not peeled or cracked. Looks just as the day I did it. The paint supply house has a system and they take auto paint and put it in rattle cans. I took a small piece of fabric in for color match. This young Lady comes out, maybe 18 yrs old, and takes my little piece out into the sunshine. As she is holding a chip chart she says you need this one. I had picked another. I did not argue and she gave me a small can of the paint I needed. She then took a small amount of this paint and put it into a couple rattle cans by using the machine they had.
I paid my small fee and off I went. I have to say the paint was a perfect match and it has held up great. It is an ImRon paint. I thought for sure it would crack or something. It only took a very small amount to do the repair I believe 3 cans in total, I am going to repaint the complete airplane using this method. I will post a video of me doing this when I do. It was going to be this year but this year its a new engine.
I will post some pics of this repair and what the paint looks like today if any cares to see.
Tony

[martymayes]

Aaron, if people are having success with it, might be hard to convince them otherwise. I would have no problems "experimenting" with an alternative fabric finish coating. That's what it's all about.

[Mike Switzer]

Well, I guess I learned something new today. :)

[Aaron Novak]

Aaron, if people are having success with it, might be hard to convince them otherwise. I would have no problems "experimenting" with an alternative fabric finish coating. That's what it's all about.

Marty,
Its not experimenting if it has been around for years. Back around WW1 using enamel over nitrate dope was common. Sometimes the dope was pigmented with a clear enamel, sometimes the enamel was pigmented. With the creation of the butyrate dopes, the nitrate/enamel system was abandoned for obvious reasons. So the question of the system "working" is not the issue. However I just cannot forsee spending all the time and money covering an aircraft, to save a couple bucks on the finish that will result in a drasticly shorter life than say polytone. For Historical aircraft I think its pretty neat though. 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?

[1600vw]

Aaron, if people are having success with it, might be hard to convince them otherwise. I would have no problems "experimenting" with an alternative fabric finish coating. That's what it's all about.

You are so right. When or if I ever do recover my airplane I am using latex. I only went with the repair I did because the builder used auto paint in the building process. I wanted to follow what he had done. Saying that the auto paint did not hold up well. Now I am not sure if maybe the paint made 15 years ago is the paint made today, today's paint could be different I am not a chemist.

But Latex will be my paint of choice on a complete recover job. With lots of wet sanding to get that awesome look.

[1600vw]

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.

[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/catalog/cspages/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?

[Aaron Novak]

Plastic, stainless, coated aluminum and brass. Unfortunately many of the older spray guns have bare aluminum areas in them, and aluminum cups. I personally had a cup ruined by thinned latex of a certain brand in 20 minutes. I had used it previously with another brand latex for over a year without issue. It literally ate the cup, turned the paint grey, and made a pretty severe mess. The 3M disposable head gun does a pretty decent job shooting latex. You will also find better luck using an acrylic extender to thin the latex as it tends to not destroy the weathering performance as badly.

[Sam Buchanan]

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.

Yes, latex paints can be thinned with water and the finish works beautifully. Twenty years of field history bears this out.

Weather resistance is a moot point for our airplanes. How many aircraft that are lovingly crafted in our shops spend their days tied down outdoors? For all practical purposes....none. When you calculate the hours typically flown by the low-n-slow custom-built aircraft the exposure to UV during the course of a year is measured in tens of hours. A finish that was designed for thirty years exposure 24/7 to the elements is overkill for our application whether it is thinned, not thinned, rolled, brushed, or sprayed.

If you want to spray latex, Lowes's sells a latex spray gun under the Kobalt brand for less than $50. According to the presenter of the webinar that started this thread, it works like a charm.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_220964-47120-SGY-AIR70_?PL=1&productId=3401350

3385

[Aaron Novak]

Yes, latex paints can be thinned with water and the finish works beautifully. Twenty years of field history bears this out.

Weather resistance is a moot point for our airplanes. How many aircraft that are lovingly crafted in our shops spend their days tied down outdoors? For all practical purposes....none. When you calculate the hours typically flown by the low-n-slow custom-built aircraft the exposure to UV during the course of a year is measured in tens of hours. A finish that was designed for thirty years exposure 24/7 to the elements is overkill for our application whether it is thinned, not thinned, rolled, brushed, or sprayed.

If you want to spray latex, Lowes's sells a latex spray gun under the Kobalt brand for less than $50. According to the presenter of the webinar that started this thread, it works like a charm.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_220964-47120-SGY-AIR70_?PL=1&productId=3401350

3385


Sam,
You are arguing a different point. Whether or not thinning the latex material can cause a change in its performance ( in many ways ) is not a question. It can. Determining if that change is acceptable, is up to the builder. That along with the extreme brand to brand variation would seem to easily justify the homebuilder doing some test work before paintng their whole airplane. I am not trying to discourage anyone from using a process, just trying to impress the notion that you have to ( or should ) do a little more "leg work" when you are using unknown materials.

[mmorrison123]

I have set up a website, www.wienerdogaero.com, to serve as a central repository for information on painting with latex paint. The most recent additions are three videos that show the sanding and polishing process on a Mirco Mong biplane project. The videos are on youtube but can be reached via a link on http://www.wienerdogaero.com/MicroMong.php . They show some of the potential for latex paint on your airplane.

Malcolm Morrison

[Frank Giger]

Malcolm, can I borrow a couple of pictures from your website for a presentation I'm giving on painting with latex to our EAA chapter later this month?

[mmorrison123]

Frank

Help yourself. Good luck with the presentation.

Malcolm

[Frank Giger]

Presentation went well!

I had covered a large picture frame with fabric, priming and painting with sections left showing every stage, from raw fabric to final layer of color. I didn't sand it, as I wasn't going for aesthetics. Hell, I didn't sand the paint on my airplane!

The big deal was when I cut a square of the fabric from the finished area and passed it around to show the flexibility and grip of primer and paint on the fabric. We all took turns stretching and rubbing the five inch square trying to get it to delaminate. I was pleased to see it held up to our abuse.

Many thanks for letting me use some of the slides from your website; I referenced it, of course and gave you credit for your work.

[Fastcapy]

So, what is the consensus on painting an aluminum plane, like my Sonex with latex? I seem to only find info about fabric aircraft and latex paint.

I know that aluminum siding, soffit and fascia are painted with latex all the time. But what about using it on aircraft. I assume thinning it with washer fluid would be a no-no but are people using other methods to use latex on metal skinned aircraft?

[1600vw]

Latex paint and your home built.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2735032127001

[Aaron Novak]

So, what is the consensus on painting an aluminum plane, like my Sonex with latex? I seem to only find info about fabric aircraft and latex paint.

I know that aluminum siding, soffit and fascia are painted with latex all the time. But what about using it on aircraft. I assume thinning it with washer fluid would be a no-no but are people using other methods to use latex on metal skinned aircraft?

I would think that standard finishing methods should be followed up to the topcoat, meaning the use of an epoxy primer after proper surface preparation. There are DTM (direct to metal) acrylic paints available. Big question I have is, why would you? I cannot think of one advantage of acrylics in this application that outweigh the risks. If its health concerns remember that emulsion paints have nasty things too in them. If its cost, then use synthetic enamel (same price as "latex").

[Frank Giger]

The "why" varies in reason!

For me, the side sheeting of my Nieuport is about four feet long and a little more high of aluminum. For consistency of color and finish (the rest of the fuselage is fabric covered), I'll paint it with latex. I'll prime it with something other than latex just to put a barrier between the two, but I'm not really concerned with corrosion.

1) The underlying fuselage structure is painted.
2) The sheeting is easily replaced.
3) I'm not building a plane for the ages. The paint would have to corrode through the sheeting and then the tubing underneath to cause a serious problem.

My plane has a flying lifespan tied to my own. I'm almost 50; let's be generous and say I fly into my 80's. I'm betting it will take longer than 30 years for a hangared aircraft to have the latex eat through the aluminum to the point where it needs to be replaced. If it does, I'll just cut a new one from sheet and screw it on.

When I stop flying the plane will either be donated to be hung from a ceiling or scrapped - I do not want it sold to another person.

[Aaron Novak]

The "why" varies in reason!

For me, the side sheeting of my Nieuport is about four feet long and a little more high of aluminum. For consistency of color and finish (the rest of the fuselage is fabric covered), I'll paint it with latex. I'll prime it with something other than latex just to put a barrier between the two, but I'm not really concerned with corrosion.

1) The underlying fuselage structure is painted.
2) The sheeting is easily replaced.
3) I'm not building a plane for the ages. The paint would have to corrode through the sheeting and then the tubing underneath to cause a serious problem.

My plane has a flying lifespan tied to my own. I'm almost 50; let's be generous and say I fly into my 80's. I'm betting it will take longer than 30 years for a hangared aircraft to have the latex eat through the aluminum to the point where it needs to be replaced. If it does, I'll just cut a new one from sheet and screw it on.

When I stop flying the plane will either be donated to be hung from a ceiling or scrapped - I do not want it sold to another person.

Frank,
That's a perfectly fine reason. However the poster asked about a stressed skin design. Beside the engineering reasons, I would think re-sale value would drop with an un-proven finishing system on something like a sonex.

[Frank Giger]

Well, looking at Barnstormers, depending on model, a Sonex goes for somewhere between 25K and 35K in resale.

Now we all know that Experimentals usually depreciate faster than new cars, usually having a resale value below what the parts to make them are (there are exceptions, of course). But the Sonex prices for resale are right about the kit price, which is really good!

Here's the thing for me in a good part of the selection of which paint to use, and that's overall price of whatever I'm putting on the aircraft. One can paint an aircraft with latex for less than 300 bucks (if one goes cheap, half that). I needn't quote what it costs to paint it professionally, or by using certified methods.

Is it worth a couple grand to use certified paints on a plane that's ran one thirty thousand? This may surprise you, but I'd say yeah, it's in the ball park. In for a penny, etc.

Do I think that the corrosion risk to stressed aluminum is such that one shouldn't do it? Nope. As you've pointed out, prudent research, particularly in priming the aircraft, is warranted. But it's not like one is using formic acid to wash polished aluminum skins - latex paints are pretty friendly (or at least not actively hostile) to aluminum. We've been painting aluminum of poorer alloys than on aircraft that is exposed to the elements with exterior latex for a very long time and it has a very good corrosion record. I've never seen an aluminum gutter or screen door that was painted with exterior latex corrode, for example.

I'd also state that if one is building an airplane with resale in mind one has kind of missed the point of building an airplane.

[Frank Giger]

And I'd also like to thank you for participating in the thread! A healthy amount of skepticism is a very good thing, and stressing prudence in how we all go about construction of our aircraft is a core function of the EAA in particular and the homebuilding community in general.

We all do things and make decisions about our builds that warrant serious consideration on safety and design; sometimes it's a compromise though usually it's not.

Just because something can be done and works doesn't mean one should follow it when it deviates from type certified practices and procedures.

Barnstormers in the 1930's, for instance, routinely patched and even covered their aircraft using 400 count cotton bedsheets and doped them with regular ol' shellack. Did it work? Yep. Would anyone recommend it for a build? Nope.

That extreme example that's far away from using latex is important, though. Go in with your eyes open, do the due dilligence, and make an informed decision, at least as informed as one can be. If it's within your comfort zone and is reasonably vetted, go for it. If not, don't!

[Aaron Novak]

And I'd also like to thank you for participating in the thread! A healthy amount of skepticism is a very good thing, and stressing prudence in how we all go about construction of our aircraft is a core function of the EAA in particular and the homebuilding community in general.

We all do things and make decisions about our builds that warrant serious consideration on safety and design; sometimes it's a compromise though usually it's not.

Just because something can be done and works doesn't mean one should follow it when it deviates from type certified practices and procedures.

Barnstormers in the 1930's, for instance, routinely patched and even covered their aircraft using 400 count cotton bedsheets and doped them with regular ol' shellack. Did it work? Yep. Would anyone recommend it for a build? Nope.

That extreme example that's far away from using latex is important, though. Go in with your eyes open, do the due dilligence, and make an informed decision, at least as informed as one can be. If it's within your comfort zone and is reasonably vetted, go for it. If not, don't!

Good sound reasoning there. I will pose this question, whywould one pick latex (acrylic emulsion) over synthetic enamel to paint theirmetal structure? If cost was my big concern, yet I wanted an aviation provenfinish, I would be going the synthetic enamel route in a heartbeat. Its foundat every store that sells latex, and is the same cost. Heck here in Wisconsinyou can even buy traditional enamel based zinc chromate primer by the gallon atthe local hardware store. The hardware stores can even tint the syntheticenamel any shade you want, including some metallic. Dupont Nason Nasco sold atthe discount auto parts stores can be had in many metallic shades for a fewmore bucks. Don’t get me wrong, I think its silly what some spend on paint fora hangared airplane, and myself prefer the simpler, safer and more “traditional”finishes.

[Frank Giger]

That's a good question. I think it's because we're all cautiously courageous; others put latex on their planes and it turned out okay, so I'll try it, too!

The roots of using latex paint actually comes from the RC crowd, from which it was extrapolated to fabric covered aircraft. It's a good fit, as latex won't crack when it's flexed.

I think it's this attribute that makes it attractive for metal skinned aircraft as well; when a wing flexes the paint won't crack.