Scudrunners

I think that's the water-based system.

No MEK, alcohol or toluene.

Yes its waterborne meaning it uses water as its carrier and thinner. Nicer for inside an enclosed shop in the winter.

[quote author=Citabriafloats link=topic=4991.msg12840#msg12840 date=1480445279]
I like powder coat for cosmetic things like valve cover, definitely wouldn't want to have the cylinders coated. As far as cracks my experience has been that you will see the coating crack or separate around the crack just like with paint.
[/quote]


There are various different discussions on the subject. Google "powder coat hide cracks aircraft" and you can decide for yourself on what opinion is best for you.

Last time I heard, Maule was powder-coating
structural components on new, certified aircraft. 
Has for years.

Probably best not to tell the grumpy old
mechanics that.

http://mauleairinc.com/standard-equipment/

[quote]Powder Coating on Airframe, Engine Mount, and Door Frames[/quote]

God, there is so much useless superstition
in Aviation.  We could give Italian widows
lessons on that and gossiping.

Thanks for the info and the link.

Just beware that the Stewart System is much different from the usual methods.
The spraying technique can be very difficult for an experienced sprayer because traditional methods wont work .
It is a very easy product to cause runs in . Make sure you follow their instructions to a T
Do not deviate in any way and you should have no problem.


NOTE: unlike most products , dope etc , Stewarts cannot be shrunk or ironed once you coat the fabric  , so make sure that
you have ironed and shrunk the fabric to the proper tension prior to brushing or spraying
      Also: although water based it is still full of chemicals. Make sure to wear the proper fresh air equipment when using it

I think I will stick with nitrate/butyrate.  It's
been good enough for the last 100 years, and
MEK is actually nowhere near as dangerous as
the elites told us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanone

[quote]Serious health effects in animals have been seen only at very high levels ...

In 2005, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency removed butanone from the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)[/quote]

That's completely different from what I was told
years ago.  As usual, everything every expert tells
you will eventually turn out to be bullshit.

I have to agree with the Colonel
After covering 30+ aircraft using everything ; Dope, Hipec, Polyfiber, Smithcraft, Blue River, Stits,  I still say that nitrate/butyrate dope is the best product
Polyfiber is not bad but if you use their polytone  colours , beware , they stain easily
Their Aerothane clours are better but being rubber based are hard to sand an repair.
Dope is tried and true and has been around forever . So far nobody has made a new product that has it's  all round features.

nitrate/butyrate is best for repair.  But I would
only use it for a hangared airplane.  I hate to
admit it, but it's not as tough and doesn't handle
the UV as well as a urethane topcoat.

I would not use Stitts/Polyfiber on anything that
went faster than 80 mph (eg an ultralight) because
it just won't tighten up and balloons at speed.  I
have several friends that regret using it, because
of this.

Ceconite/nitrate/butytrate works for me:

[url=http://www.randolphaircraft.com]www.randolphaircraft.com[/url]

PS  It's important to choose a process and to stick
with it.  No freestyling.  Ask Steve Wittman.  Incredibly
he survived air racing in the 1930's, only to have an
airport named after him, which is never good.
Remember immediately after his crash they blamed
it on wake turbulence from a bomber?  What BS:

[url=https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=35828]https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=35828[/url]

[quote]REPORTS FROM GROUND WITNESSES, NONE OF WHOM ACTUALLY SAW THE AIRPLANE, VARIED FROM HEARING A HIGH REVVING ENGINE TO AN EXPLOSION. EXAMINATION OF THE WRECKAGE REVEALED THAT THE AIRPLANE EXPERIENCED AN IN-FLIGHT BREAKUP.

DAMAGE AND STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION WAS INDICATIVE OF AILERON-WING FLUTTER. WING FABRIC DOPE WAS DISTRESSED OR MISSING ON THE AFT INBOARD PORTION OF THE LEFT WING UPPER SURFACE AND ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE TOP OF THE MAIN SPAR. LARGE AREAS OF DOPE WERE ALSO MISSING FROM THE LEFT WING UNDERSURFACE.

THE ENTIRE FABRIC COVERING ON THE UPPER AND LOWER SURFACES OF THE RIGHT WING HAD DELAMINATED FROM THE WING PLYWOOD SKIN.

THE DOPED FINISH WAS SEVERELY DISTRESSED AND MOTTLED.

[size=18pt]THE FABRIC COVERING HAD NOT BEEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLY-FIBER COVERING AND PAINT MANUAL[/size];

THE PLYWOOD WAS NOT TREATED WITH THE POLY-BRUSH COMPOUND.

[b]CAUSE: AILERON-WING FLUTTER INDUCED BY SEPARATION AT THE TRAILING EDGE OF AN UNBONDED PORTION OF WING FABRIC AT AN AILERON WING STATION.

THE DEBONDING OF THE WING FABRIC WAS A RESULT OF IMPROPER INSTALLATION[/b].[/quote]

The area inside the prop slipstream is the most
challenging.  Be sure to drop the stitches down
to one inch, and don't spare the rand-o-bond to
try to make it stick.

Thanks for all the advice. I have researched Stewart systems a lot and we will be following all of their procedures. It had stits on it for the last 33 years and it's still in decent shape except for a few spots where the paint was cracked. Up until 2013 it was never on floats just skis and wheels in the prairies. So I'm not expecting to get 30 years out of this cover but it would be nice. Citabrias don't use stitching the fabric is held down with screws and washers with reinforcing tape and then another layer of tape over top.