I thought about posting on this several times, and each time I kicked it to the curb. It was not until yesterday when I watched a Youtuber say something that I thought, OK, what the hey. He said, “once you go gravity feed, you won’t go back.” He didn’t explain that statement, but I thought it interesting. Here is why:
Recently, I treated myself to a new airbrush and this time–I would try a gravity feed. In all my years airbrushing I have always had siphon feed. Why? No reason really. I think I thought it more convenient for those bigger spray jobs.
With this new purchase I went with a Badger 105. I had the opportunity to test drive it and here is where the story begins. The experience seemed night and day different. The spray pattern, the flow, and most of all, the atomization seemed markedly improved. It felt like I was driving a Cadillac, verses a nice running Taurus. Now-- for the record… I am Taurus kind of guy, but–I sure liked the smooth ride. [;)]
Is it my imagination? Does gravity feed offer spray advantages?
Hey Tojo-- you hit on something I didn’t think of, and that is the cleanup. It DID seem easier to clean. Along with that, I noticed the openings inside the brush are larger. That surprised me.
One issue I need to resolve is this. With my siphon feed, I’d take the detachable paint cup to my bench and mix the paint there. With the gravity feed, the cup is fixed to the brush. This is a minor issue but I need to come up with a new process of how to load the paint. I don’t want to go with pipets. Maybe I’ll just do what I did the last time. Just add some thinner into the brush and add the paint while at my paint station.
I have both and also the metal side cup for two siphon feed guns. The side cup cuts a compromise. I don’t see that the spray pattern is better with gravity but it is less tricky to flow the paint. Some viscosity paints that will flow through the gravity gun won’t even spray through a siphon with jars/bottles. And you can count on shooting lower pressures more reliably with gravity. As I said the compromise being a side cup with siphon feed.
The best pattern, best atomization from the airbrushes I own is from my Badger 200 fine needle combo and that’s siphon. But you gotta get the mix right. Plus I been shooting the thing for over 45 years so I know it’s ways. You also need to consider what siphon airbrushes you’re comparing that 105 to, which is a very decent airbrush to begin with.
About 30 years ago I painted a 1/32 F-15 with the airbrush I had back then, a Paasche siphon feed. I had it since my teen years, but I have no recollection of using it back then.
I dreaded the cleanup at every session. That was my last model for 20+ yrs. (not because of the airbrush experience, though. It was more just because)
When I got back in some years back, I found the old Paasche was broken, so I had to buy a new a/b, and it ended up being a gravity feed.
I can’t see ever going back to a siphon feed, unless I was painting large volumes of paint for some reason. Bigger scales, perhaps.
Just my 2 cents, based on my personal experience and laziness, especially in the clean-up arena which Tojo already mentioned.
Meanwhile, I’m glad to hear you are enjoying your new gravity feed.
Makes sence. As for the air-pressure–the thought occurred to me that I might need to dial it back.
Interesting. I own one and I hate it for the mix reason you mentioned. I agree. The mix is crucial. And there is my issue with it. 90% of the time I am fighting dry tip, spitting, and clogging. In the old days, with the older model that had the O ring–pulsating was an issue. I’d be changing that ring often. Not to mention the tip needed repeated waxing, or pulsing became an issue again. It was one fight after another. But that was then. I own the newer 200 and the noted issues are gone, with the exception of needing a good mix. I digress. I am positive that with the correct mix it works great. You are a testament to that, as a few others here I know use them. My hat it off to you guys that use them. Maybe someday when I have more time, I’ll try to master it.
I am comparing to a Badger 155. I love the brush as well and in terms of problems, it offers very little. It has been extremely reliable for me. Still–I noticed the nice improvement with the 105.
I only started using a gravity feed airbrush within the past six to eight months or so, so I am still getting a feel for it. But I really do like the simplicity of its loading and clean up after a session. Now I just need to learn how to get best results from the brush itself.
For me, the cleanup is easier with my siphon feed. When I’m done with a color, I just drop the needle, cap, and cup into my relish jar of MEK and put the jar in my ultrasonic cleaner. Takes less than 5 seconds and the ultrasonic cleaner does the rest. Just can’t get into the whole flushing thing with a gravity feed. Seems like I’m wasting whatever I use to flush it, and I’m not a big fan of extra atomized solvents in the air. I guess I’ve been using my Paasche H long enough to get really good results with it. Just bought an Iwata Eclipse CS, but I keep going back to the H.
Like most of you, I’ve tried both. I’m happy with my 105, although there are so many parameters to operation of an airbrush that it’s not just one thing.
I mix my paint is little paper shot glasses, and then crimp the rim and pour it into the cup.
i think a very important factor in choosing an airbrush is how it feels in your hand. I like light, so the 105 feels right.
The 155 has a .76mm nozzle and a dual taper needle. Your 105 has a .5mm nozzle. If you put your 105 nozzle, spray regulator and needle in the 155 you would find there is not so much difference, especially if you use a side cup.
There is that side cup idea once again ! It really does make a difference and help cut a compromise between gravity and siphon. That’s my observation with my 200 anyway, and actually with my Paasche H as well. Plus you can remove the cup and go back to bottles for larger paint jobs. It just adds some flexibility to a siphon brush.
On another note my gravity brush is a stickler on cleaning, the nozzles/tips are so tiny it’s a pain in the butt to do compared with the 200 or H, imo.
Very interesting, Don, and good to know. I think for now I will leave things as they are and see how the new brush treats me. Btw. I had noticed the needle taper difference almost immediately. There is stark contrast and I wondered about the difference between the two. Now I know. Thanks for chiming in.
Hmm, interesting. It’s been so long since I used the 200 that I had not noticed.
The one thing about the side cup, aside it nesting angled and paint spills out more easily (it happened to me more than once making a nice mess), is in the cleaning of the cup after each use. It has that sharp angle at the bottom connection. THAT, and the passage being so small made it a little tough to clean out. I’d use a dental pick but it is tough to get past that tight curve, and I doubt that did a very good job for me. Laziness kept me from looking for a better solution. “Blah! It’s good enough!”
You can make a cap for the cup. I did. Here’s a link. And, you can use a pipe cleaner to swab out the stem. Here’s my step by step procedure for cleaning the 155. It’s actually more than you really have to do, but I’m a little anal about cleaning.
Don
By the way, if you really want fine control you can get a .25mm nozzle set that will fit both your 155 and 105.
Say Don, there is a lot of good info in your post. I like your solution to the side-cup cap. I will look for that locally. And, that is good to know about the .25 mm nozzle set. I am making note of that, for finer jobs.
I enjoyed seeing your cleaning procedure. There are some commonalities in how I do it. Like you, I clean all the pieces and sections you noted, and I do that after every paint session. I also use an eye dropper to feed thinner as I flush the brush out. The dropper is very handy. I recently made a change in my process in that I migrated away from using cotton swabs. The reason for this is because I was finding swab fibers in subsequent spray jobs. I instead found and use foam swabs and they work fantastic to wipe out the paint cup, paint tube, and even the internals of the brush. The foam is super absorbent and it sucks up paint fluids fast. No fibers, super soft, and super absorbent. It makes quick work of cleaning.
Just a quick story. Part of my process is removing the tip and placing it into the side cup to soak while I do other cleaning. I rest it in lacquer thinner and with the wide side facing up. When I am ready for the tip, I use the needle to snag the tip out of the cup. I then use a rubberized dental pick to wipe the inside of the tip. That pick works great and I don’t fear damaging the tip. Anyway, it has happened twice now that I took the cup and dumped the thinner out into a larger can of used thinner. Well, to my chagrin, I hear a tinging sound as the tip drops into the large can of lacquer refuse. Son of a… I forgot to remove the tip. I had to carefully transfer the thinner into another container and fish for the tip. Thought I’d share this Bakster folly.
I don’t use cotton swabs for the same reason. Even pipe cleaners can leave fibers, so I flush after their use. If you haven’t already, you might want to check out my cleaning page for more thoughts on the subject.
I use a Paasche VL, which is a siphon-fed brush. I like it, it’s a workhorse. But I can’t hold the brush comfortably. I want to hold it like I’d hold a pen, but the cup is in the way, whether I dress it to the right or the left. I want to try out a gravity-fed brush, with the cup mounted in line with the axis of the brush, because it’d be a more comfortable grip.
