If I might jump in here, "metallic" is a generic term, as paint mfr's
say mica and other materials are now used. I remember many years ago
that to shoot metallics you needed a pressure pot with a motorized
mixer, else the aluminum particles settle quickly, giving you uneven
effect. And the newer pearl coats are just that, scrapings from
oyster shells.
I just traded in the metallic tan truck, and never bothered to try to
compare a nonmetallic of same color. It's possible the light
scattering effect is giving the infrared rays a circuitous trip back
out and around the absorbing pigments? Just a wild guess, or just
pigments used Ford's paints.
There's an interesting article on avweb.com, "Improving Engine Cooling
by Painting." The author discusses the fact that even white paint, if
it has organic pigments, is black in the infrared spectrum. Of note
also is the fact that plastic has much lower infrared reflectance than
metal, so on the latter the rays get two bites of the apple.
So with due respect to the chart in the Europa manual, we don't know
the substrate used to derive the results, nor the formulation of the
paints.
Best to test the actual paint to be used, on actual fiberglass!
Regards,
Fred F., A063
Al Fuller wrote:
>
> Rob:
>
> I'm not an engineer, but my common sense tells me that a metallic paint
> will reflect more solar energy, leaving less to be absorbed by the
> structure - thereby making your contemplated choice better than
> non-metallic. In fact, aren't the UV barrier paints just metallics?
>
> Keep up the good comments.
>
> Yours,
>
> Al Fuller.
>
> At Friday 03:46 PM9/14/2001, you wrote:
> >Having said all this I must admit I have considered painting the bird a
> >metallic silver, but not without making some measurements first. Your
> >observation regarding metallic tan gives pause to that idea, however.
> >....
|