Ultranomad wrote:
How does your product affect friction – does it leave any sticky residue or, conversely, does it lubricate things?
Is it any good at cleaning electrical contacts?
Both Rust Blockers are non-conductive and can be used to clean and protect electrical contacts. Rust Blocker Original (Orange) will leave a lightly tacky / waxy film. Rust Blocker CLEAR COAT is less sticky. Both products will also penetrate and lubricate.
Hope that helps.
Both product now available in Czech Republic :-)
By9468840 wrote:
I used the clear XCP stuff on my new cylinder fins. It left no residue. It is like a clear coat so it does not change the color of the surface either.
so far no rust on the fins after almost a year.
LeSving wrote:
Remember this is mostly snake oil. Corrosion requires three ingredients: Something to corrode (aluminium, steel etc) An electrolyte (water basically, worsened by orders of magnitude by contamination of salts and dirt) Oxygen (the air)Two point:
All three have to be in “contact” for corrosion to start and develop By removing just one ingredient from the equation, no corrosion will occur. Corrosion = oxidationThere are several fancy kinds of corrosion as well, connected to cracks and welds and (poor) material quality, but none of these are corrosion in the correct sense, more like material and manufacturing defects.
It should be evident that any coating of the material, will prevent corrosion. Coating will stop the material from coming into contact with water/air. The best coating is paint, epoxy paint to be precise, straight on to the bare metal. But any paint that sticks well and creates a non porous layer will do. The problem with paint is it requires the material to be pre-treated according to specs and it can wear off. There are lots of places where paint is no good solution.
Sticky/waxy oil/film is also well known. Anything will work as most oils/waxes are hydrophobic and creates a layer for which oxygen/water cannot penetrate. That XCP does seem to work, but why he didn’t test some products from Tectyl (THE industry leader in anti corrosion vaxes for decades) is very odd. This is what Boeing, Airbus etc uses, as well as the entire car industry.
It really isn’t snake oil ;-)
As you say, you need certain conditions for corrosion to occur, but there really are big differences between the products that are designed to protect against it. A lot of the products used in the aviation industry are products that have been used historically, largely due to a reluctance of OEM testing. Product innovation/introduction is therefore pretty slow. Rust Blocker is approved by Leonardo Aerospace. Other approvals are being worked on. The performance differential between XCP Rust Blocker and products like ACF50 / Corrosion X / Corban / Ardrox, etc. is very significant (and able to be objectively assessed through standardized testing, e.g. ASTM B117, etc.).
Thanks :-)
A_and_C wrote:
My experience in the corrosion inhibiting field has been gathered over forty years in the aircraft maintenance business. Having seen the industry go from very little in the way of corrosion inhibitors to some quite complex solutions to the corrosion problem.The bottom line is anything is better than nothing and most of the discussion on this forum is only looking at marginal performance differences between products, this is reflected in the fact that in the Cessna SIDS document a number of corrosion inhibitor products are considered suitable.
My particular favourite is CorrosionX, The US army has used it on their helicopter fleet with excellent results describing it as having saved $m’s for a very modest investment.
While CorrosionX was the place to go for my metal aircraft it is not suitable for composite or wooden aircraft , these require a targeted point defence using wax type products that stay just on the metal component that requires protection ( rather than the penetrating properties of CorrosionX or ACF50 type products ) . The recommendations in the Diamond maintenance manuals are a good place to start to look for products for this application if your aircraft maintenance documents have no guidance in this area.
Hi,
There are many products used for this application, and products like ACF50 & Corrosion X are good products that have been used for a long time in the industry. However, technology does move on, and we can now improve quite significantly on that performance. :-)
This thread is reading rather too much like a promotional piece for one particular product.
Graham wrote:
This thread is reading rather too much like a promotional piece for one particular product.
Sorry Graham – just trying to get some data out there. Thought that was what people were after, but point taken. We’ll leave it there. If anyone wants more info, please feel free to get in touch :-)
Cheers,
Scott
@XCP_Professional fair enough, but it looks more like marketing material than data. Who performed these tests?
I tend to align myself with the views of @LeSving – i.e. it is mostly snake oil. Anything that keeps the three things apart ‘works’, the question is how well it stays in place and continues to keep them apart. This varies a lot depending on the use case. Hanging strips of mild steel up in a fog of salt water is one thing, but it isn’t necessarily analogous to the life of metal in an airframe.
Vans RV builders will argue amongst themselves forever about the merits (and necessity or otherwise) of all sorts of different priming solutions for their alclad kits. Some go to great lengths with incredibly complex multi-stage priming procedures for every single part, such that it must make up a very significant part of their total build time and certainly adds to their basic empty weight. Vans themselves indicate that no priming is necessary as far as they are concerned and only prime their quick-build kits (with a cheap translucent primer) so as to keep the quick-build option available to those committed to priming. The majority seem to go with a simple chromate primer, often from an aerosol can. This gets you something on the surface without adding too much build time (and weight).
I am not aware of many Vans builders leaving their kits unprimed and then spraying anti-corrosion products inside post-build.
XCP_Professional wrote:
Sorry Graham – just trying to get some data out there. Thought that was what people were after, but point taken. We’ll leave it there. If anyone wants more info, please feel free to get in touch :-)Cheers,
Scott
Thanks Scott, I appreciate the info. I’ll pick up a can of the clear coat version – I have some polished aluminum gear legs and I think this would be a perfect application. I found some in the UK Amazon – do you have any dealers in Switzerland? My usual places to shop are:
https://www.aircraftspruce.eu/covering-supplies/corrosion-treatment.html
https://www.amazon.fr/
https://www.amazon.de/
https://www.galaxus.ch/
eurogaguest1980 wrote:
Thanks Scott, I appreciate the info. I’ll pick up a can of the clear coat version – I have some polished aluminum gear legs and I think this would be a perfect application. I found some in the UK Amazon – do you have any dealers in Switzerland? My usual places to shop are:
Hi,
We do – these guys are great :-)
https://www.grimm-handel.ch/xcp-protection
Cheers,
Scott
Graham wrote:
@XCP_Professional fair enough, but it looks more like marketing material than data. Who performed these tests?
Hi Graham,
No worries, appreciate we won’t convince everyone :-). Those images I posted are ours, but you don’t need to look very far to find others who have replicated the results. It’s all standardised testing (i.e. ASTM, DIN, etc.). OEM’s have obtained the same results.
Cheers,
Scott
