On Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:52 GMT, in message

"Roger Long" wrote:

Interesting. If your Hughes has a fairly modern underbody it should
be about the same wetted area as my E32. That makes it sound like the
yard did get it all done with two cans (one coat). There was just
about a quarter can left over for the pad areas.

I must have been putting it on thicker but it's hard to see how. The
temperature was at the lower end of the recommended range, I used the
shortest nap roller I could get, and the roller was just barely wet
out each time. It doesn't look thick and there are even some spots I
want to hit when we lift her out of the blocks.

I use a very thin foam roller, and I hurry enough that passers by
think I'm being rude. That, and your point about overcoating -- you
can put on a whole lot more paint if you aren't aggressive about
spreading it out. With the new formulation it doesn't really dry in
the tray, but it dries on the hull in a real hurry.

Modern is relative ;-) The Hughes shows a distinct IOR era influence
with skinny ends and substantial overhangs, full skeg rudder and a
more or less square, swept back fin keel. I'd guess at about the same
area.

Ryk

"Ryk" wrote

That, and your point about overcoating -- you
can put on a whole lot more paint if you aren't aggressive about
spreading it out.

That's probably where the thinning comes in. It was drying so fast on
the hull (good drying day even though cool) that I couldn't move it
around much after it was rolled on.

It doesn't look very thick but, if it was only 25% thicker than the
yard put on, it would account for the coverage difference. In other
words, you don't have to add 25% thinner to increase coverage by that
amount with a fast drying paint like this which is what I was thinking
when I first posted.

I'll try foam rollers next year as well.

--

Roger Long