Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.166.39] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.1.2)
  with HTTP id 2550673 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:11:32 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Cabosil
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.1.2
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:11:32 -0400
Message-ID: <web-2550673@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c36ce1$728c3ae0$831ca8c0@QAUDAP1800>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Don Parsons" <DAP@DParsons.com>:

Cabosil tends to be heavy. I think it is heavier than Flox, but I am not
100% certain of that. Gary Hunter, who does the Epoxy Do's and Don'ts
sessions at AirVenture, tends to steer aircraft builders away from using
cabosil because of the weight issue. At the very least he urges very sparing
use of it.

Don Parsons
ES-166-FB


> To Larry Graves
> Is there an advantage or disadvantage to Cabosil or
> Flox in a structural bond
> Regards
> Art