Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:01:18 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1403925@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.229.254.18; envelope-from=jschroeder@perigee.net
Subject: Re: hysol vs fuel again...
References: <list-1402756@logan.com>
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <list-1402756@logan.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3929)

LLoyd -

I was told by Vern Pifer that Lancair was the only Hysol customer that  
bought 9339. The price for Loctite's formulating and producing the  
relatively small quantities rose to a point that a lower cost substitute  
was clearly warranted. People were beginning to complain a lot about the  
price of 9339 vs. the price of the Hysol (different formulation entirely)  
that Spruce and others were selling. Lancair concluded that 9360 was a  
very close substitute, but the pot life was less. Knowing this, we had to  
work a lot faster bonding on our top on a hot August day than we did on  
the wings. The 9360 also has a better peel strength/resistance.

Tim Ong: I hope I stated this correctly. Please weigh in if I didn't.

Cheers,

John Schroeder
Lancair ES - N58WP

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:42:19 -0400, <Sky2high@aol.com> wrote:

>  Does anybody know why Lancair changed from 9339 to 9360