The extensive Microscale decals that came with my $200 Fisher F9F Cougar kit look fabulous…on paper. But when I apply them, they suck. Dozens and dozens of tiny bubbles, about the size of a pencilpoint, no matter how many applications of MicroSet and MicroSol I use. The only solution seems to be to puncture the bubbles with a needle, but there are hundreds of them, and this is a big (1:32) model. Any advice?
Stephan
How long do you let them set?
Are the decals going onto a glossy or flat surface?
Also it appears that you may be having a serious problem with the adhesive on the decals reacting to something on the surface of your model.
It could be the paint or the type of clear-coat you are using, or a reaction to the use of a vinigar/water mix some folks use instead of just plain warm water with the baking soda in some flats, creating gas bubbles, just like in pancakes.
Some people use Future to prepare, but it is an ammonia based product, and takes longer to dry and more coats then I like, so I prefer to use Testors gloss Clear Coat to prep for decals (If the paint is flat and I intend to finish the model in a flat finish, I only gloss the areas I intend to decal), and I have had no problems like you are describing.
I mainly tend to get excessive bubbles when I try to decal directly over a flat finish which tends to keep trapped air under the decals better then a gloss finish, as well as the baking soda they add to the flat mixture to dull it probably reacts to some sort of acid that is used in the decal adhesive. When that happens, I wet both thumbs, holding the decal in place with one, and work the bubbles and wrinkles out with the other as the decal slowly dries. Sometimes I have to do this more then once while it is drying, as they can tends to “come back”.
Tom [C):-)]
Make shure all the air and i mean all the air is out from under nethe them ive had the same issue with new decals i had to use a pin and pop every little bubble, and re soak.
The decals are going onto a thoroughly dry (by two weeks) sprayed-on coat of Future over flat Model Master paint. They’ve been on (i.e. setting) for about a week now, with multiple applications of MicroSol after the initial coat of MicroSet. This is the first time I’ve ever had this happen, and I’m not doing anything differently than on many previous models.
Interestingly, I know of another modeler who had the same problem,same decals on the very same model: guy named David Francis, who reviewed the kit for Scale Aircraft Modelling International Magazine (for which I write a monthly column). He attributed it to having use a hairdryer to hasten the drying process, but it obviosuly hand nothing to do with the hairdryer, since I didn’t use anything like that.
Stephan
Too late now, but the problem is minute air pockets trapped under the decal. Large models use large decals & the chance of air getting trapped is greater. Before applying any setting solutions, I press the decals down using a cotton swab or damp paper towel, working from the middle of the dacal to the edge until the decal looks absolutely flat. Even then, and after applying the setting solution, there is a chance of small bubbles appearing. Prick the bubble gently with a sharp needle point or #11 Xacto & apply a little setting solution to that area only. It’s a pain, but eventually all should be well.
Regards, Rick
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, Microsol,Microsol, now you tell me [banghead]
Unfortunately, not all decals are created equally suited to the stuff. [xx(]
I have had decals do fine, then I thought I would “improve on perfection” by using some Microsol, and then have them suddenly pucker and get all sorts of strange bubbles and what-not. Then I had to constantly smooth/stretch and puncture the decal until it dried.
Microsol can ruin a thin, delicate decal, whereas it can do wonderful magic with a rugged, heavy one that will not lay down even under the threat of death. [%-)]
I even had a decal’s colors begin to melt on me after I accidentally got too much microsol on it. I mean, the thing started to smear as I was trying to wipe off the excess with a tissue!
My motto is if the decal doing well without it, don’t use it!
I find a good coat with a clear-coat over the decal will take care of any tendencies to peel after drying, etc.
Tom [C):-)]
Since you are applying them to a Future surface (Future is not ammonia based and does not contain ammonia, BTW) you might try using Future as your setting solution.
Also, unless the model has been well protected for that two weeks, there may be a surface contamination—dust particle sized, but not necessarily dust. Try washing the surface with Woolite, dry lint free with a Swiffer or similar cloth.
[#ditto]
[#offtopic]
BTW,The Future I got at the local Ace Hardwre sure smells like ammonia to me. According to Johnson Wax’s MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet that they make available on line) on the product it has both ether and ammonium hydroxide (ammonia) in it. I don’t think they recommend you use it where you do not have very good ventilation. This is nasty stuff. Sorry [:-^]
I would suppose they put it in there to help clean a floor surface as it shines it. [%-)]
In using it in comparison with a regular acrylic clear-coat from Testors, which is what I normally use for decals and my final coats, I find it is more trouble to handle, it stinks like a cleaner, and takes longer to dry. I would apologize to it’s makers for these remarks, but it is a floor product, and no where do they recommend it for plastic models, so I do not think it will make the Johnson Wax people angry. [swg]
But then I hand-brush, have athsma (which makes me sensative to chemical odors) and am lazy about clearing a nicely heated room with fresh, cold, outside air in the winter. I believe that most Future advocates use it in and air brush, which I imagine it is less prone to clogging with a cleaner in it.
If I ever get back to air-brushing a clear-coat, I might give it another try, as I did not care for the tendency of Testors acrylics to clog faster and being harder to clean from an air brush then enamels.
I know this totally goes against the extreme wisdom and conventional practices of all those who are so anointed that they get to write books and articles for both this publication as well as Osprey modelling books.
So much for my [2c]
Tom [C):-)]
Here is a link to SC Johnson’s MSDS for Future Floor Finish. I cannot find any reference to ammonia or hydroxide on it and the toxicity level is slight (don’t ingest, don’t get in your eyes). No special requirements are required for ventilation, respiratory, eye, skin or “other” protective measures. This is a floor care product they sell to home users, who have children crawling on the floor.
In my experience Future is the most benign product modelers can use, other than a cutting mat! I detect no ammonia smell, rather a flowery scent. I know what ammonia smells like, I used to work for a blueprinter!
My [2c]!
Thank you, Bill!
The “diethylene glycol monoethyl ether” is also known as Carbitol. Such compounds are more clearly identified to the lay person as “glycolated ethers” although that term is not in favor among some organic chemists, as it can be considered technically inaccurate nomenclature. It is present in very small amounts as a cosolvent and other than its defatting properties is not very harmful, according to it’s MSDS, unless you swallow large quantities.
“Ether” is a term applied to a very large family of organic solvents and related chemicals of widely varying properties. Unfortunately, it is a “buzz word,” too.
It is also possible to find MSDS that are not current or accurate, especially on the web.
Go to the bottom of the MSDS for Future (product no. 179940), and there is a list of all the various ingrediants, including ammonia hydroxide, which is shown to be in 5% solution (straight ammonia cleaners use only a 30% solution) which is a fairly strong solution for me.
Like I said, I am very sensative to fumes of any sort.
My former statement that Future is ammonia based was a typo-error, as I meant to say it is a water based product with ammonia in it. Sorry for any confusion it may have inadvertantly caused. [BH]
It is no excuse, but I kind of jammed that statement in a hurry the other day as I was taking a break using a library computer and they were shutting down early for the holiday.[sigh]
I mean, as a sales engineer successfully selling chemicals, equipment qand industrial lubricants for over 10 years, I should know the difference between water and other solvents. [:-^]
Tom [C):-)]
Thank you for the info on ethers, Tri.
For your information, as a representative employee of a consumible products manufacturer, I can assure you though, that the MSDS’s as published on the web are provided and have to be accurate according to Federal laws governing the interatate transport of potentiaolly hazardous materials. These regulations have been given further “teeth” by the more recently passed Patriot Act.
They are placed there so any emergency responder can have “instant access” to exactly he/she is dealing with, especially in the case of a “Hazmat” alert which can be aggrivated by potential terrorist activity.
If it is found that there is any false of misleading information in these reports that leads to the injury of an emergency person or Federal Investigator, the company will be facing stiff fines with potential Federal prison terms for those persons responsible for the misleading/erroneous information.
So I don’t think that they will be “fudging” with that kind of Damacletion sword hanging over their heads, do you?
Tom [C):-)]