Razorback Fabric

[Grant S. Bailey]

I think this may have been covered before, but I can't find any posts doing a search.

I am interested in purchasing an aircraft covered with razorback fabric (covered in the 70's). Anyone know anything or have any comments about this fabric?

[birdlegs]

Re: Razorback Fabric

Its fiberglass fabric I belive, and its not easy to get nitrate or butirate dopes to adhere to it. The manufacturer claims it to be a " lifetime fabric".
It was on my T- cart's wings when I got it . The stuff is also heavy!

[AndyDuke]

Re: Razorback Fabric

My aircraft was covered in Razorback in 1969, and it's still going strong. The fabric has not gone slack and does not show any sign of wear but, and this is a big but, it is VERY heavy. In a comparitive test against Stits, it worked out as twice the weight of the medium weight Stits. This helps bring the aircraft in at 865 lbs empty; too heavy.

I will be recovering mine in Stits and hope to loose 60lbs in fabric weight in the process.

It's all a matter of priority, weight or longevity.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Razorback Fabric

We used it to recover the tail of a C-118 (I think) a LOOOOOONG time ago. The stuff is strong as metal and weighs more. I seem to remember the edges of a cut were sharp as the dickens and cut us up pretty bad too. Sure lasts a long time though (longer than what is under it). I would want to tear it off every 10 years or so to see what it is hiding. I would NEVER cover a light plane with it and really wouldn't use it again on anything because of the cuts and dificulty getting it clean enough for the paint to stick well (unless of cours you want fabric you can practically walk on).
Hank

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Razorback Fabric

My neighbor has a Belanca Viking and regularly walk all the way down the wing. Give me the creeps. With this Razor back stuff, maybe I can do the same on my taylorcraft!!! Th 6 foot drop at the end would suck though......

Richard Boyer
N95791

[birdlegs]

Re: Razorback Fabric

I Flew mine with this product for a long time on the wings. I noticed it never shrunk tight out on the wing tips and had wrinkles. When I took it off I saved the cover for layout specs. and bout' fainted when I grabbed the bundles.....

[VictorBravo]

Re: Razorback Fabric

My vote is 100% for Stits (now Poly-Fiber). If you just read the book and do what Ray Stits says, you will come out with an above average, safe and good quality job the very first time. I have heard from old timers that the Stits chemicals stick to the Stits fabric better than plain dope sticks to Ceconite.

I think Razorback would be just peachy on the underside of a crop spray plane, or perhaps used for bullet proof vests.

By the way, if you have trouble getting the coatings to stick to fiberglass fabric, then it could be proportionately EASIER for the sunshine to get to it, and that harms fiberglass. It may not chemically break it down like it would break down Dacron, but exposure to the elements sure makes fiberglass get all ratty and brittle.

[Grant S. Bailey]

Re: Razorback Fabric

Any problems with getting the fabric off the wings? For instance, on a Cessna 140, would the razorback fabric have been attached to the ribs with Martin wire as conventional 140 wings were done? Is the stuff glued to the leading edge with difficult glue to remove, etc. I haven't inspected the airplane yet, but if I do purchase it, I would ultimately recover the wings. I just don't want to get in a jackpot with rib repairs, trying to remove very tough glue etc..

[tcartdrv]

Re: Razorback Fabric

I have worked with gade A cotton and dope, Ceconite and dope, the Polyfiber process and Razorback and dope. By far Razorback is the most miserable stuff I have ever worked with. There are basically three types of types of fabric used in covering aircraft, grade A cotton, polyesters or "dacron" (Ceconite and Polyfiber) and fiberglass (Razorback). Razorback is considerably heavier than the other fabrics and has a lower thread count per inch than cotton or dacron, so it takes a lot more dope to fill the weave (still more weight). On the "plus" side, Razorback will far outlast any other fabric. On the "minus" side, dope does not stick well to fiberglass so nitrate dope was applied to the "weave" of Razorback in the manufacturing process. This dope is what gives new Razorback it's light blue tint and lets dope applied in the covering process "stick" a little better. Razorback has not been manufactured for a number of years. If you found someone who still stocked it, the fabric would probably be as good as the day it was made, but the dope in the fabric would already be 10+ years old. I don't want to discourage anyone from buying an aircraft that is covered in Razorback, but I would consider the cost of "recovering" along with the purchase price. Twenty year old Razorback may look good and still "pull test" above a 100 pounds and may easily go another 10+ years without any problems, but 30 years is a long time to go without completely inspecting wooden spars, built-up aluminum ribs (pre-war) and steel tubes. Hope this sheds some light on Razorback.

Garry Fisher
1939 BC-65
s/n 1359
NC23628
Fresno, CA.

[birdlegs]

Re: Razorback Fabric removal

Grant; when I removed the stuff from my wings I noticed that it created alot of floating dust (glass particles) so use a respirator if you still like your lungs. Also the bonding on mine was'nt too good so it came off reasonably well from the leading and trailing edges,the STC with it included line items to use screws to fasten the ribs. To its credit, most were intact, and its install dated 1959. The top fabric had rotted ( no suprise) But the ribs, spars and tubing of the wings were pristine, under the dust and mouse droppings. .All in all the wings cleaned up nicely with normal efforts. Brad.