So it appears that none of the big ARTF manifacturers will not be doing printed scheme coverings, stating that they do not withstand the ravages of time.

I have a Skywing ARS300 91", EF Slick 580 79" and my old PRC Edge gone to a friend, they are all printed schemes and still perfect after 2+ years.

Was the printed covering really that bad for everyone else?

I just bought my first plane with a printed scheme. I’m curious to see how it holds up myself.

The one that I have, the covering just doesn't shrink that well.

The one pictured above doesn’t have a wrinkle in it anywhere. It’s probably the nicest / tightest covering job I’ve ever seen. Don’t know if it will stay that way, but it’s definitely not new and is still tight.

Originally Posted by Motomazzo

The one pictured above doesn’t have a wrinkle in it anywhere. It’s probably the nicest / tightest covering job I’ve ever seen. Don’t know if it will stay that way, but it’s definitely not new and is still tight.

My ARS300 is exactly the same, perfect

The Contrarian checking in here. I don't care for printed schemes for (2) reasons:

1. The primary reason is that in case of a small ding, shop-wear, or otherwise repairable damage, it's not just a simple matter of wood and Ultracote. Replacing a printed scheme isn't viable, especially after the manufacturer is no longer producing replacement panels of the printed covering.
2. The 2nd reason is that without the limitations of conventional covering materials, the manufacturers tend to go wild, creating very busy-looking designs that I do not care for. Many were difficult for me to orient top vs bottom on the sky. I realize that many pilots love tons of graphics on their aircraft, but I am not among them.

When a manufacturer was offering a choice of conventional covering and printed covering, and the conventional covering was out of stock...I'd move on to another manufacturer. I don't think I'm alone in this. It was very often on EF and NWRC's sites that the printed versions were still in stock, long after the traditional covering schemes were sold out.

Having stated all of that, I'm not a fan of the lifting/delaminating Ultracote/Oracover and would love a more durable covering. Old-school MonoKote was better for me in this regard.

"Old-school MonoKote was better for me in this regard"
The best winners at Toledo show were done in MonoKote - Mark B's for instance

I have EF, SW and 3DHS printed covering models. The Pros are they look great when new and can be be wild schemes you couldn't recreate with traditional covering. They don't seem to be as prone to wrinkle/bubble in the sun so generally low maintenance. Cons are a thicker, heavier material (think sticky back drawer/shelf liner), while less prone to wrinkles do not re-shrink nor re-stick like traditional covering and are impossible to match/recreate if a repair is needed.

Overall I think it was a cool fad, and I get why mfgs tried, but I'm happy to see the trend die.

I've seen photos of the printed scheme on the RWB EF Laser blow out on the fuselage and wings. Aside from the looks of weathering and panel lines. . . it's entirely possible to replicate a lot of those schemes using traditional covering and a glorified vinyl cutter.
One benefit to those printed schemes was running smoke, there were no layers to unravel.
I also heard that they don't shrink as well and are heavier than traditional schemes.

Originally Posted by RCAddiction

The Contrarian checking in here. I don't care for printed schemes for (2) reasons:

1. The primary reason is that in case of a small ding, shop-wear, or otherwise repairable damage, it's not just a simple matter of wood and Ultracote. Replacing a printed scheme isn't viable, especially after the manufacturer is no longer producing replacement panels of the printed covering.
2. The 2nd reason is that without the limitations of conventional covering materials, the manufacturers tend to go wild, creating very busy-looking designs that I do not care for. Many were difficult for me to orient top vs bottom on the sky. I realize that many pilots love tons of graphics on their aircraft, but I am not among them.

When a manufacturer was offering a choice of conventional covering and printed covering, and the conventional covering was out of stock...I'd move on to another manufacturer. I don't think I'm alone in this. It was very often on EF and NWRC's sites that the printed versions were still in stock, long after the traditional covering schemes were sold out.

Having stated all of that, I'm not a fan of the lifting/delaminating Ultracote/Oracover and would love a more durable covering. Old-school MonoKote was better for me in this regard.

+1

Originally Posted by RCAddiction

The Contrarian checking in here. I don't care for printed schemes for (2) reasons:

1. The primary reason is that in case of a small ding, shop-wear, or otherwise repairable damage, it's not just a simple matter of wood and Ultracote. Replacing a printed scheme isn't viable, especially after the manufacturer is no longer producing replacement panels of the printed covering.
2. The 2nd reason is that without the limitations of conventional covering materials, the manufacturers tend to go wild, creating very busy-looking designs that I do not care for. Many were difficult for me to orient top vs bottom on the sky. I realize that many pilots love tons of graphics on their aircraft, but I am not among them.

When a manufacturer was offering a choice of conventional covering and printed covering, and the conventional covering was out of stock...I'd move on to another manufacturer. I don't think I'm alone in this. It was very often on EF and NWRC's sites that the printed versions were still in stock, long after the traditional covering schemes were sold out.

Having stated all of that, I'm not a fan of the lifting/delaminating Ultracote/Oracover and would love a more durable covering. Old-school MonoKote was better for me in this regard.

Agree 100%! Loved my Monokote, so sad its gone.