 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / August 2004Any comments on Econocote, good/bad
I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go with Mono or Ultra cote? Thanks >I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go >with Mono or Ultra cote? Econocote is great for disposable airplanes, a la Combat Gremlins, etc. That is all... if you really want it to stick, try using some Balsarite over the open framework, do a light final sand and then apply film. I don't get many sags in the film, (due to temperature changes), when I use Balsarite before covering. opinions will vary, jk I've used it before with good results. > I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go > with Mono or Ultra cote? > Thanks >I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go >with Mono or Ultra cote? >Thanks Phil- Go with Moneycote or Ultracote. Cheapo low-temp films like Econokote are something to resort to over foamies that would be damaged by the heat needed to apply the good stuff, but the quality products are much easier to apply over open structures, stick better, look better, are less prone to sag in the sun, and are much more resistant to punctures and tears. Abel >Econocote okay or should I go >with Mono or Ultra cote? So far, no one has mentioned that Econokote is fuel resistant, NOT fuel proof. It's also thin compared to Monokote and Ultracote, and requires a lower temperature to properly attach and shrink. I wouldn't use it for a fuel plane or a plane you really care about. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" > I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go > with Mono or Ultra cote? > Thanks I feel strongly about Ultracoat. One of my kids picked an Ultracoat color for their plane, I used it and am hooked on it after years of Monocoat. Econocoat as I recall it is not so forgiving in application but once applied as good as anything else. Why not give SOLARTEX a try? Available from BALSAUSA, it goes on well, has good adhesion and is quite durable. I will admit it is not flashy as other coverings but, with its other positive qualities, I give up flash in a heartbeat. It goes around compound curves (ie wing tips) well, good stretch and shrink, is paintable off the roll and, has withstood the 5 years of exhaust gases on my "Nothin' Fancy" biplane. It is an iron on, fabric-like covering that is not seen all that much but that should not stop you from exploring it. I recommend it. Steve Barnett Arnold, Maryland > Why not give SOLARTEX a try? Available from BALSAUSA, it goes on well, has > good adhesion and is quite durable. I will admit it is not flashy as other [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Steve Barnett > Arnold, Maryland Yes if you want a fabric like covering solartex is a fine covering, I have used it before and it is easy on the corners like Ultracoat. > I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go > with Mono or Ultra cote? > Thanks I don't like Econocote. It's lighter, weaker, more delicate re: temperature. For very lightweight models it's okay, but otherwise I prefer MonoKote. I have had good and bad results with UltraCote, which I think has quality control problems. It's like a box of chocolates--you never know what you're going to get. If you love your plane, use Ultracote or Monokote. Both will serve you well. Personnaly, I perfer Ultracote but either one will work. It's a matter of personal preference. Econocote will not seal the wood and you will have to remove the covering and repair the fuel soaked wood and then recover the model about once a year to keep it airworthy. The same holds true with Towercote. Stay away from it unless covering a foam plane. Jim W > > I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go > > with Mono or Ultra cote? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think has quality control problems. It's like a box of > chocolates--you never know what you're going to get. I have my first plane still that I bought 4 years ago, and have poured 7 gallons of fuel though, and I have it covered in Towercoat, never had to recover it and it still looks great as the first day that I cover it > If you love your plane, use Ultracote or Monokote. Both will serve you well. > Personnaly, I perfer Ultracote but either one will work. It's a matter of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I think has quality control problems. It's like a box of > > chocolates--you never know what you're going to get. Glad your luck was better than mine. My Kadet LT-40 is a mess because of fuel soak. That was with Towercote. My Falcon 56 MkII needed to be recovered about once a year when I used Econocote. All the planes I have covered with regular Monokote and Utracote have not had this problem. Jim W > I have my first plane still that I bought 4 years ago, and have poured 7 > gallons of fuel though, and I have it covered in Towercoat, never had to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > I think has quality control problems. It's like a box of > > > chocolates--you never know what you're going to get. Econokote is good for trim colors over Monolote or Ultracote because it is a very low heat film. It also comes in a bunch of colors that are different from the main coverings. Econocote is not good for primary covering on any plane you want to keep for a long time. I suggest Ultracote as it is easier to get a great finish with. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > Glad your luck was better than mine. My Kadet LT-40 is a mess because of > fuel soak. That was with Towercote. My Falcon 56 MkII needed to be recovered [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > I think has quality control problems. It's like a box of > > > > chocolates--you never know what you're going to get. > That was with Towercote. My Falcon 56 MkII needed to be recovered >about once a year when I used Econocote. I repeat myself - Towercote and Econokote are NOT fuel proof. They are only fuel RESISTANT, and not very good at that. Stick with Monokote, Ultracote, and the various "texs". Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" Dr1. My 4*40 is now 4 years old, covered in towercoat, and I havent had a problem with it getting fuel soaked, it still looks great and all seams are still nice and tight, maybe you just dont know how to use low temp covering to get the best results ?!?. Robert Williams > I repeat myself - Towercote and Econokote are NOT fuel proof. They are only > fuel RESISTANT, and not very good at that. Stick with Monokote, Ultracote, and > the various "texs". > > Dr.1 Driver > "There's a Hun in the sun!" >, maybe you just dont know how to use low temp covering to get >the best results ?!?. OK, bright boy, YOU call Top Flite or Tower and ask them. I've used the stuff, and I'll stick by what I said. Maybe I just don't like low temp, cheap POS covering on my planes I spend hard-earned $$$ for. In my R/C lifetime, I've built close to 100 planes, all types, and all but about 3 were kits, not ARF's. What's your score? People pay me to cover their planes for them. I think I know covering. <filtered> Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" how many ???? not as many as you, but around 20, and I also cover planes for our club members, and not one member has complain to me about the covering. Robert Williams > >, maybe you just dont know how to use low temp covering to get > >the best results ?!?. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Dr.1 Driver > "There's a Hun in the sun!" Glad your luck was better than mine. My Kadet LT-40 is a mess because of fuel soak. That was with Towercote. My Falcon 56 MkII needed to be recovered about once a year when I used Econocote. All the planes I have covered with regular Monokote and Utracote have not had this problem. Jim W > I have my first plane still that I bought 4 years ago, and have poured 7 > gallons of fuel though, and I have it covered in Towercoat, never had to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > I think has quality control problems. It's like a box of > > > chocolates--you never know what you're going to get. Econokote has its uses, but covering a good well-built wooden plane is not one of them. It ok to use on a 'foamie' aka 'flying ice chest,' but that is about it. No one's mentioned that because it is a low-temp' film, how easy it is to melt a hole thru it, especially over an open frame work, such as a wing. For this reason it is very difficult to get a real tight shrink to it and continually has to be re-shrunk. The plastic file is fuel proof, but the adhesive is not. For this reason, the color continually bleeds from under the over-lapped joints when fuel gets on it, or fuel residue for that matter, until eventually, it starts to peel off at the joints and the wood underneath is exposed to the fuel. Guess what, it also does this with 'econokote trim pieces' applied to regular monokote. Monokote and Ultrakote (my favorite) are also much stronger and add much strength to open structure areas, such as open wings or fuselages. If you're going to take the time to do it, do it right. The couple of bucks a roll more is money well spent. Your time is worth it. > I'm covering my first aircraft, a PT 40, is Econocote okay or should I go > with Mono or Ultra cote? > Thanks I used MonoKote for many years and was satisfied. Tried Econcote an did not like it. Tried Ultracote after winning three rolls in a raffle I switched to Ultracote exclusivley. I cover, shrink, paint all seam with water based urathane, reshrink again after a week or more a needed -- mode |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.