ACF-50 treatment quotes?

[varlajo]

Looking for relatively recent numbers. Thank you!! 

[A64Pilot]

Also look for Corrosion-X, my opinion is it’s better and I think more widely done

[Marc_B]

@varlajo some shops use Boeshield T9 as well.  I think that's what Top Gun uses (or at least they did many years ago on my Mooney).  You might give Mark Rouch a call at Top Gun and see what they typically charge since you're close by at SQL. 

[Ragsf15e]

If done as part of an annual it can’t be more than about two hours of maintenance time. I did it last year, and it’s not hard if everything is already opened up. If someone had to go and open all the inspection panels to reach everywhere you want sprayed, that would add time. There is also a factor of having the proper equipment, so that might add to the quote. it’s not complicated, but it takes a fine mist sprayer.  So call it $250-$800?  That’s my guess.

[LANCECASPER]

17 hours ago, varlajo said:

Looking for relatively recent numbers. Thank you!! 

The other factor is that if you have an autopilot, you don't want any of these products on your servos. So make sure whoever does it is aware of how to protect them.

 

[DXB]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

The other factor is that if you have an autopilot, you don't want any of these products on your servos. So make sure whoever does it is aware of how to protect them.

 

This respost notification triggered terrible memories -thanks for nothing .    Of note the pitch servo did evenually go back to working normally without my having to pull it.   But I haven't fogged my plane since that date, and I probably should consider doing it again.   I wonder what the safest most modern approach is.

[Ragsf15e]

1 minute ago, DXB said:

This respost notification triggered terrible memories -thanks for nothing .    Of note the pitch servo did evenually go back to working normally without my having to pull it.   But I haven't fogged my plane since that date, and I probably should consider doing it again.   I wonder what the safest most modern approach is.

You can bag them, but the fog will eventually get in there even if you let it sit overnight before removing the bags.  Aim carefully?  I basically just did wings and tail and didn’t go near the aileron servo.  I didn’t do the fuselage…

[Sabremech]

9 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Also look for Corrosion-X, my opinion is it’s better and I think more widely done

I have to disagree that it’s better. I’m going to call it miserable because even 10 years after it was sprayed in my bird it was wicking out between the seams of the wing skins. What a pain in the butt cleaning that after every flight. Sure puts a damper on it if you plan to paint the airplane. Plan on more cost to ensure it is not on the paintable surface. 
I much prefer ACF-50 as it’s not as likely to wick for years. Pick wisely as there’s bound to be some kind of issue you didn’t plan on having in regards to maintaining your bird. 

[A64Pilot]

I was speaking about its anti corrosive performance.

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I was speaking about its anti corrosive performance.

I think ACF-50 is better and lasts longer but glad we all get our own choices. 

[A64Pilot]

What’s your background to make that statement?

Mine is being responsible for the care and feeding of 24 AH-64A aircraft in Korea, 3-6 Cav.

Our mission was overwater as in repelling a possible seaborne attack from N Korea, as such we often flew over the Yellow Sea which is of course salt water at low level, so we were covered in salt spray, yes we washed the aircraft and flushed engines immediately on return.

You won’t I believe ever see a Naval Apache, one was tested decades ago back as far as 1984, reason isn’t it’s capability, it’s because in its design that Hughes Helicopter put zero emphasis on corrosion prevention, they just had no experience in sea borne aircraft, the Magnesium gear boxes were the worst. We spent millions a year due to corrosion on the 3-6 Cav ones and to a lesser extent on the 1/3 Aviation ones stationed at Savannah Ga.

Anyway several different preventative compounds were tested and Corrosion-X was easiest to apply, had the least negative effects and worked the best.

As much as I believe my Army experience was good, it’s the Navy that literally wrote the book on Corrosion prevention, they have an advantage as their aircraft from the design phase are heavily influenced by corrosion prevention, but having fleets of aircraft tied down on Carriers and regularly soaked by sea water has to be the worst possible case. I believe the US Navy knows more about Corrosion in aircraft materials than anyone, by a large margin.

They use Corrosion -X heavily and I’m sure are an important test bed, Corrosion-X is the only product readily available to us Civilians that meets the Navy spec.

https://www.corrosionx.com/pages/aviation

Edited February 6 by A64Pilot

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

What’s your background to make that statement?

Mine is being responsible for the care and feeding of 24 AH-64A aircraft in Korea, 3-6 Cav.

Our mission was overwater as in repelling a possible seaborne attack from N Korea, as such we often flew over the Yellow Sea which is of course salt water at low level, so we were covered in salt spray, yes we washed the aircraft and flushed engines immediately on return.

You won’t I believe ever see a Naval Apache, one was tested decades ago back as far as 1984, reason isn’t it’s capability, it’s because in its design that Hughes Helicopter put zero emphasis on corrosion prevention, they just had no experience in sea borne aircraft, the Magnesium gear boxes were the worst. We spent millions a year due to corrosion on the 3-6 Cav ones and to a lesser extent on the 1/3 Aviation ones stationed at Savannah Ga.

Anyway several different preventative compounds were tested and Corrosion-X was easiest to apply, had the least negative effects and worked the best.

As much as I believe my Army experience was good, it’s the Navy that literally wrote the book on Corrosion prevention, they have an advantage as their aircraft from the design phase are heavily influenced by corrosion prevention, but having fleets of aircraft tied down on Carriers and regularly soaked by sea water has to be the worst possible case. I believe the US Navy knows more about Corrosion in aircraft materials than anyone, by a large margin.

They use Corrosion -X heavily and I’m sure are an important test bed, Corrosion-X is the only product readily available to us Civilians that meets the Navy spec.

https://www.corrosionx.com/pages/aviation

I don’t feel the need to get in a back and forth of who’s more experienced. Like I stated, you get to choose what you like or what you think is best for you. Thankfully, I get to do the same. I have ACF-50 in stock and use it as needed. 
My Mooney isn’t based on a carrier or getting a saltwater bath any time soon. 

[philiplane]

the wicking action of Corrosion X is what makes it better in preventing corrosion between skin lap joints. ACF50 is more waxy, and that's why it doesn't seep out through seams. I prefer the better wicking action of Corrosion X, because lap joint corrosion is hard to fix at any price. That said, don't use any anti-corrosion compound if you are planning paint work within the next three years. 

[Pinecone]

Are you sure you are talking about ACF-50 and not BoeShield?  

ACF-50 is like water and wicks.  And wicks out of seams for a LONG time.   Boeshield leaves a waxy protective coating with little wicking.