From: m35products (m35prod@optonline.net)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 19:24:09 PDT
Greetings, Jim:
You seem to have succeeded in comparing the two products fairly, as in
"apples to apples". It was good of you to take the time to do the test, and
to share the results with us. However, I would give the Aervoe company a
call, or an email, with several questions for them. Perhaps the paint was
out-dated? Not being an expert on paint (or anything else) I am not sure if
manufacturing dates are an issue. Perhaps the Aervoe was stored in a too
hot / too cold environment. I have no bias for or against either product, I
just suggest that we give Aervoe a chance to defend their product on this
list. It seems only fair. I speak from experience, having had my products
bad-mouthed here by grumpy old men. Once a product gets bad press, it's hard
to recover credibility.
Arthur
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim" <gadget@easypath.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: [MV] Gillespie vs Aervoe, some results
> My Experience: Gillespie vs. Aervoe
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a painting professional, and only have these two
> experiences to compare. I read labels, asked questions, try various
> settings, and I practiced on lots of scrap before I painted these
vehicles.
> The results are very different, and I attribute them entirely to the
paint.
>
> Gillespie used: Non-CARC '383' Forest Green
> Thinner: Xylene, about 4.5:1
> Conditions: Outdoors, upper 60's dry weather
> Recipient: 1971 M35A2 W/W (originally faded 3-color camo)
>
> Aervoe used: Non-CARC '992G" Flat Marine Green (WWII)
> Thinner: Aervoe slow thinner, about 4.5:1
> Conditions: Indoors, lower 60's rainy weather
> Recipient: 1944 MB (originally a semi-gloss Navy gray)
>
> Equipment used: DeVilbis Finishline HVLP suction gun. 70psi fed to gun by
> compressor regulator, cut further by gun regulator to about 20psi for
Arevoe
> and about 24psi for Gillespie.
>
> Initial results: Gillespie is the hands down winner
>
> Details:
> In the can, the Aervoe and Gillespie paints seemed to have settled the
> same amount. During stirring with an electrc drill and mixer the Gillespie
> became a syrupy unified mixture and all the solids appeared to have come
> loose from the bottom, well mixing into the paint. The Aervoe never mixed
> fully, and with even twice the mixing time spent (almost 10 minutes) the
> darker swirls contained unmixed solids that kept coming loose from the
> bottom. I never did get the bottom of the can feeling as clean as the
> Gillespie. The mixture itself was less impressive too. While the Gillespie
> felt like a smooth mixture of "melted" solids in a solvent, the Aervoe
felt
> and looked more like sand stirred up in a can of oil. I felt if I didn't
> hurry to pour, the settling would begin. The Aervoe is a thinner paint
than
> the Gillespie and did not have a nice smooth consistency.
> In the spray gun, on the first coat, I'd say the paints were similar.
> Coverage was better with the Aervoe, but that was likely due to the much
> darker color over gray. On the second coat, the Aervoe was being absorbed
> like I was painting dry wood. The first coat was so dry and powdery, it
just
> sucked in the paint during round 2. I ended up putting a very heavy 2nd
(and
> final) coat on with the Aervoe since to spray it any lighter would have
left
> me guessing where I had just sprayed. It dried instantly when sprayed
thin.
> I tried various solvent percentages, but had the same results with rapid
> absorption by the first coat of Aervoe. The Gillespie paint was much
> different. Through all 4 layers I put on, each coat was thin and looked
like
> it was sitting on the earlier layer of paint, rather than being absorbed
by
> it. In this respect, I'd say the Gillespie is easier to put on, and allows
> better layer thickness control.
> The final product is hard to tell right now. The Aervoe takes 72 hours
to
> fully dry according to the can. With the heavy second coat, I'd want to
give
> it that time anyway. The Arevoe left a lot of loose paint powder behind,
it
> looks like it's going to need a good wash when it's dry. The Gillespie
> didn't do this. Well, there was a little...but nothing like this. The
loose
> powder can come from improper gun setup, but this wasn't the case. I tried
> several different settings but got the same powdery overspray.
>
> Conclusion:
> Gillespie appears to be a well integrated mixture which leaves behind a
> colored plastic film. A film of molecules stuck to themselves as well as
to
> your vehicle. Aervoe appears to be a mix of colored powder in some kind of
> thinned glue. The two are not integrated well. When it dries only the
sticky
> powder attaches to your vehicle. It seems likely the Aervoe would weather
> much faster than the Gillespie due to the fact it it's powder rather than
a
> film like the Gillespie is.
>
> An aside:
> The MB is to undergo a frame-off resto sometime in the next couple
years.
> The MB was Navy gray and my Dad, a former Marine, didn't really like it.
The
> Aervoe just had to buy us some time. Thank goodness he parks it in a
garage!
>
> Recommendations:
> Instead of pouring the Aervoe over gravel, maybe the Aervoe could be
> poured directly on the ground and small round rocks could be set into the
> wet paint. When dry, it would give the illusion of a military green stream
> with lovely river bed rocks......
>
> Jim
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:20:32 PDT