New Iwata, new problems

Hey can't hurt to try no??

 I just find my155 so much easier and less fussy to take care of and use. Also I prefer the trigger feel so much more. I was hoping the 100LG would have a simular feel?

MaxPower wrote:

Hey Ken how about I send Badger my HP-CS and you send me a 100LG??

MaxPower,

the service isn't so great that I can turn your well made Iwata airbrush into a well made Badger airbrush.  But if you're really looking to add to or improve your finishing tools, feel free to to throw me a direct email, and I'll see if I can help you.  Thanks for trying though, LOL, I always appreciate a good sense of humor. 

I'd bet you could find a buyer for that Iwata, which if you sold it for half of what you probably paid for it,  you have enough to buy a brand new 100LG at full msrp.  Know knock on Iwata, like Badger their quality is top notch, but we sure do make 'em more affordable.

Hey Ken how about I send Badger my HP-CS and you send me a 100LG??

kenbadger wrote:

But the past couple of days there has been a thread where a person happens to be located in a geographic area very far from the modeling mainstream, and has a problem. The technical issue seems to be a minor problem with a nozzle, but because of his location and distance from relevant supply stores this minor problem has practically stopped the guy in his tracks for days.  Doc, can you email me the thread you refer to or give the poster my email address.  If it is a Badger airbrush I will get thim taken care of regardless of his local.

The airbrush mentioned in the post was not a Badger.

DoC

Wrinkledm wrote:

With that said I'm having a hard time adapting to the Iwata.  I've thinned the paint as I normally would for the Badger. (MM with MM thinner. (Not Acryl) Anyways, what worked well for the Badger seems to causing the Iwata to spit paint.  I thinned the paint even more and it flows better but I can't get too close to my work or the paint runs. It also takes several coats where the badger would do it in 1 or 2.  Did I miss something or is something out of wack on the IWATA???

Let's start over and cover the bases. First of all you are using regular Model Master enamels correct?

OK, are you straining your paint through an old piece of women's nylon before putting it into the color cup? Sometimes small clumps can clog the airbrush if you do not strain it so I would start there first. Is this a standard HP-CS needle or the finer one?

Wrinkledm wrote:

WAITER... Never mind the fly in my soup, My original thread has been hijacked!!!!     Folks, all great information but I'm happy with both of my Airbrushes. (Badger and Iwata) I originally wanted to know what I (ME, MYSELF and I) was doing wrong with the the paint thinning and or cleaning of my new Iwata. To be honest, both of my ABs could be made of adobe mud but if they work well for what I pay for them thats all I need.   Since the subject seems to stir up alot of feelings in both camps I for one like both of my brushes.  Just give me a AB that doesn't cost two arms and a leg and doesn't break down, and I'm for one am a happy camper.I feel that I may have just asked the last AB question on this forum in well forever.   D

Wrinkled,

I am sorry for being part of not getting you the help you sought and as you accurately said hijacking your thread.

If the brand of paint you are using has a retarding agent, it may help you manipulate the paint more accurately to your specific application.  additionally the retarder will not act us much as a thinning element so it won't dilute the paint to the extent of adversely effecting its desired surface tension.  Contact your paints' manufacturer to see if they offer a retarder and use it according to their instruction.  Secondly, depending on environment related contributing factors work at the lowest pressure possible for proper airbrush function (usually start around 8 PSI for a fine spec nozzle gravity feed airbrush, regardless of brand, in "normal" humidity conditions - a little lower if at all possible in low humidity where your paint will dry faster and cause tip dry quicker).  I hope this post better serves to address your initial concern, and again I apologize for not addressing your concerns in my earlier self-serving posts.

I'll put my two cents into this debate.  I own almost every airbrush that Badger makes with the oldest ( Badger 250 and 200IL ) being over 30 years old.  When you have a product on the market that long and with a brand name following, you have a customer base to support.  I would venture to say that most of Badger's support does not go out to defective products, but to repeat business on old stock.  An example of this would be their airbrush refurbishment service.  And yes, I own four Iwata's and three Paasche's and their customer service is good, but not the same as Badger's.  Badger has a different approach to customer service that goes beyond the sale and again I stress that it's not because of a bad product.  IMHO, you have to admire Badger for innovation when it comes to product quality vs price.  Many people try to equate different corners of the airbrush market with an apples to oranges approach.  The HP-C or Micron will be compared to a 150IL or 200NH.  Not the same league of brush.  But a 150XF or 155 with the Omni fine needle will come close.  My modified 150 is as good as my HP-CS and it has a MUCH smoother action.  The modifications are an OMNI trigger and a filed and polished needle spring return system.  Yes, some will argue, well that shouldn't have to be done, but I paid a third for the brush and spent an hour modifying it. Ken and I speak over the phone and by email about different aspects of the airbrush world, including design, application by brand and type, etc.  We don't always agree ( Ken, I want my track wing design and metal head assembly protector on my Renegades! just kidding! ).  The whole gang at Badger are first rate from Ken to Jan to Herman.  My next two brushes will be the Sotar and Patriot.  Give Badger a try, they have an airbrush in their lineup that will suit any need or application.

E

Dr. Coffee wrote:

kenbadger wrote:   we've sold an average of over 100,000 units a year for the last 20+ years.  that's 2,000,000, and that's less than half as long as we've been in business.  our rate of return is less than 1% and we constantly strive for better.  If that isn't a pretty good testament to Badger's consistent quality, I wouldn't know how to meet your apparent criteria for establishing a quality standard. First of all: I am talking in general terms, with no intended, suggested or implied product or brand in mind! But you asked how to improve on quality. I will sketch my opinions. The problem: Just to play with the numbers mentioned: 1% returns on 100,000 sold items is still on the order 1000 problems per year, or between three and four and customer contacts per day. That takes time - somebody have to attend to the calls, find and ship replacement parts - and replacements and corrections (as well as postage and handling) cost $$$. Those costs would have to be covered, either by the customer, by the manufacturer facturing them in with all the other overhead of running a company, or as 'unexpected expenses', dipping into the annual profits.   And there is the neagtive PR to handle. We saw an example earlier in this thread, where somebody said flat out that he decided what brand to buy based on the absence of negative reviews. Just imagine a first-time buyer of airbrushes who finds this forum to get ideas about what makes and brands of airbrushes to consider: He does not need to read any posts to get an opionon. Merely scanning the list of thread titles - this thread inclusive - would probably go a long way to suggest that one particular brand might best be avoided. So, high numbers of customer returns cost time and $$$, and the experiences communicated throughout the user community might also turn potential buyers away from the product. Again, I am speaking in general terms with no particular product, make or brand in mind!  Not a desireable situation. One solution: (I do not claim it's the only one!) The way I am used to think about such matters is that proportionality numbers don't matter; absolute numbers do. What I try to do in such situations is to find out why one gets those returns. If there are particular problems that tend to dominate - e.g. some part that tends to fail - I'd go back and find out why that happens: Either there is a design problem, a manufacturing problem, or users might not be aware how the part is intended to be handled. So depending on what one finds in the investigation, one has a number of options: Redesign the part or subassembly of the product Review the manufacturing process of the part or subassembly Review the documentation and operation manual that is shipped with the product  So if one or two types of flaws or problems tend to dominate why people return the product, then a focused effort to solve or avoid the root causes of those one or two problems would save a lot of time and effort. And of course, once the two presently largest flaws or problems have been handled, there will be two others that dominate the list of remaining problems. Solve those next year, and one is even better off. And that's how I am used to think: Find out what happens Find out why it happens Correct the root cause / chain or event that produces the problem At all times address the one or two most dominating problem, solve them, and then focus on the next ones.  Never settle for 'this is good enough.' As for item 5), there might be a lot of reasons why one steps down from the process (relative expenses sky-rocket to solve diminishingly small hickups and inconveniences, the product being replaced by a new model next year), but 'this is good enough' is the one reason that is unacceptable. DoC

Doc, al valid points if the problem was that simplified.  Much of the minute percentage of returns we have is related to improper paint, make-up, or airbrush food color used in the airbrush, or user neglect (lack of or improper cleaning).  No matter how or how many times you explain materials compatability or maintenance you will have users who disregard proper instruction.  You have to remember we sell airbrushes to morticians, cake decorators, fingernail artists, etc... not all technical minded or overly conscientous about caring for their airbrush equipment.  Then you have the situation of an accidentally dropped airbrush or a needle dinged on a work surface.  Bottom line is that somethings are out of the manufacturer's control.  We account for that in how we handle the servicing of our products.  When there is millions of your products in usage, there is a pretty high likelyhood of periodic concerns - so its going to come up in places like this.  I mean, look here I am talking about Badger circumstance in a thread originally not even related to a problem with a Badger airbrush. 

I wish we could obtain a zero error level, based on our product testing (we test every airbrush before it leaves our factory) we actually do - but there are usage circumstances we cannot control that may unfortunately cause us to see an airbrush, that worked perfectly when it left our factory, back.

The other thing to consider is that not all airbrush users can afford a $200, $300, $400 or more airbrush, which is what you're talking about in your corrective measures.  (Badger, Iwata, and H & S do have those price level of airbrushes that may have even tighter tolerances, use "upgraded" materials, or more sophisticated designs.)  The majority of airbrushers are using $70 - $100 Paasches, Thayers, and Badgers. And much of what is discussed concern wise, all be it not in this initial post, is likely to be about those more frequently used airbrushes.  I'm not certain there is a relevant point to that, but I'm sure you realize market factors such as what the majority of users will spend on a product have to come in to play when designing and manufacturing a product.

Doc, I'll continue to respect and appreciate your opinions, and I promise you Badger will always put its best into being the best airbrush manufacture it can - as long as I am the owner.  I can't give you anymore than that, and can only hope that based on that commitment airbrushers are confident in purchasing and using Badger Air-Brush Co. products.

But the past couple of days there has been a thread where a person happens to be located in a geographic area very far from the modeling mainstream, and has a problem. The technical issue seems to be a minor problem with a nozzle, but because of his location and distance from relevant supply stores this minor problem has practically stopped the guy in his tracks for days.

 Doc, can you email me the thread you refer to or give the poster my email address.  If it is a Badger airbrush I will get thim taken care of regardless of his local.

Dr. Coffee wrote:

First of all: I am talking in general terms, with no intended, suggested or implied product or brand in mind! But you asked how to improve on quality. I will sketch my opinions. The problem: Just to play with the numbers mentioned: 1% returns on 100,000 sold items is still on the order 1000 problems per year, or between three and four and customer contacts per day. That takes time - somebody have to attend to the calls, find and ship replacement parts - and replacements and corrections (as well as postage and handling) cost $$$. Those costs would have to be covered, either by the customer, by the manufacturer facturing them in with all the other overhead of running a company, or as 'unexpected expenses', dipping into the annual profits.   And there is the neagtive PR to handle. We saw an example earlier in this thread, where somebody said flat out that he decided what brand to buy based on the absence of negative reviews. Just imagine a first-time buyer of airbrushes who finds this forum to get ideas about what makes and brands of airbrushes to consider: He does not need to read any posts to get an opionon. Merely scanning the list of thread titles - this thread inclusive - would probably go a long way to suggest that one particular brand might best be avoided. So, high numbers of customer returns cost time and $$$, and the experiences communicated throughout the user community might also turn potential buyers away from the product. Again, I am speaking in general terms with no particular product, make or brand in mind!  Not a desireable situation. One solution: (I do not claim it's the only one!) The way I am used to think about such matters is that proportionality numbers don't matter; absolute numbers do. What I try to do in such situations is to find out why one gets those returns. If there are particular problems that tend to dominate - e.g. some part that tends to fail - I'd go back and find out why that happens: Either there is a design problem, a manufacturing problem, or users might not be aware how the part is intended to be handled. So depending on what one finds in the investigation, one has a number of options: Redesign the part or subassembly of the product Review the manufacturing process of the part or subassembly Review the documentation and operation manual that is shipped with the product  So if one or two types of flaws or problems tend to dominate why people return the product, then a focused effort to solve or avoid the root causes of those one or two problems would save a lot of time and effort. And of course, once the two presently largest flaws or problems have been handled, there will be two others that dominate the list of remaining problems. Solve those next year, and one is even better off. And that's how I am used to think: Find out what happens Find out why it happens Correct the root cause / chain or event that produces the problem At all times address the one or two most dominating problem, solve them, and then focus on the next ones.  Never settle for 'this is good enough.' As for item 5), there might be a lot of reasons why one steps down from the process (relative expenses sky-rocket to solve diminishingly small hickups and inconveniences, the product being replaced by a new model next year), but 'this is good enough' is the one reason that is unacceptable. DoC

Dr.C, I think you are being a bit harsh here?

Do you really think that Ken, being part of the well recognised & praised organisation that he is, is unaware of all that you have stated above? Badger is well recognised for their supreme customer support - do you not think that if they have their mentality correct here, that it is a pretty obvious assumption to make that they listen to their customers concerns, complaints, wants & duly improve their product as required?

The fact that Ken is prepared to frequent places like this tells me that he is interested in the end user - this says in itself that he already understands the points of your "quality model"?

Just as equally, although the first time buyer may see negative reviews regarding a popular product which could put them off, they would also see the sheer number of satisfied & praising users of same said popular product!

Dr. Coffee wrote:

kenbadger wrote:   we've sold an average of over 100,000 units a year for the last 20+ years.  that's 2,000,000, and that's less than half as long as we've been in business.  our rate of return is less than 1% and we constantly strive for better.  If that isn't a pretty good testament to Badger's consistent quality, I wouldn't know how to meet your apparent criteria for establishing a quality standard. First of all: I am talking in general terms, with no intended, suggested or implied product or brand in mind! But you asked how to improve on quality. I will sketch my opinions. The problem: Just to play with the numbers mentioned: 1% returns on 100,000 sold items is still on the order 1000 problems per year, or between three and four and customer contacts per day. That takes time - somebody have to attend to the calls, find and ship replacement parts - and replacements and corrections (as well as postage and handling) cost $$$. Those costs would have to be covered, either by the customer, by the manufacturer facturing them in with all the other overhead of running a company, or as 'unexpected expenses', dipping into the annual profits.   And there is the neagtive PR to handle. We saw an example earlier in this thread, where somebody said flat out that he decided what brand to buy based on the absence of negative reviews. Just imagine a first-time buyer of airbrushes who finds this forum to get ideas about what makes and brands of airbrushes to consider: He does not need to read any posts to get an opionon. Merely scanning the list of thread titles - this thread inclusive - would probably go a long way to suggest that one particular brand might best be avoided. So, high numbers of customer returns cost time and $$$, and the experiences communicated throughout the user community might also turn potential buyers away from the product. Again, I am speaking in general terms with no particular product, make or brand in mind!  Not a desireable situation. One solution: (I do not claim it's the only one!) The way I am used to think about such matters is that proportionality numbers don't matter; absolute numbers do. What I try to do in such situations is to find out why one gets those returns. If there are particular problems that tend to dominate - e.g. some part that tends to fail - I'd go back and find out why that happens: Either there is a design problem, a manufacturing problem, or users might not be aware how the part is intended to be handled. So depending on what one finds in the investigation, one has a number of options: Redesign the part or subassembly of the product Review the manufacturing process of the part or subassembly Review the documentation and operation manual that is shipped with the product  So if one or two types of flaws or problems tend to dominate why people return the product, then a focused effort to solve or avoid the root causes of those one or two problems would save a lot of time and effort. And of course, once the two presently largest flaws or problems have been handled, there will be two others that dominate the list of remaining problems. Solve those next year, and one is even better off. And that's how I am used to think: Find out what happens Find out why it happens Correct the root cause / chain or event that produces the problem At all times address the one or two most dominating problem, solve them, and then focus on the next ones.  Never settle for 'this is good enough.' As for item 5), there might be a lot of reasons why one steps down from the process (relative expenses sky-rocket to solve diminishingly small hickups and inconveniences, the product being replaced by a new model next year), but 'this is good enough' is the one reason that is unacceptable. DoC

wait a minute!

when I think about all those small parts in an airbrush, and also how they would be machined in mass production; I cringe! The body is easy, but the needle itself is not something I'd relesh to have to make a 100K pieces a year. Then the boss says "hey I have a one percent warranty rate!" (note: he didn't say what his internal scrap rate was) Let me tell you that's a percentage to be bragging about each and everyday of the year! When I was employed we had a warranty rate of about 1.25% with an internal rate of around 2.8% for everything non conforming to the OEM stat. They came around almost weekly to see how we did this, and now I have a guy saying he's in the one percent bracket (probably way less than that). Ken, if your ever looking for a job let me know, as I know at least two dozen places that would latch on you instantly! I think most folks have no idea just how hard it is to get under the three percent mark; let alone bust the one percent mark!

gary

keilau wrote:

Squeakie, I suggest that you read the thread from the beginning before you post. There are two ways to find out what the Iwata nozzle and needle were made of. Call the manufacturer or do a "scanning electron microscopy" and "Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy" study on the parts. There are so many alloys out there, the chance of guessing it right is slim. I am not smart enough to do the study, but someone else already did.

first of all I did read every post at least twice before responding. (Note: I made my responses as I read the post.)

secondly; no manufacturer worth his salt is gonna tell you exactly what his processes are. Scanning a cross section of a piece of metal with an electron microscope is useless when looking for the chemical make up, but it will give you hints here and there. A spectrograph will, but there's also the problem of the part being so small. A good lab will get it within a couple points, but your going have to have several pieces to do this. Labs I worked with wanted to see at least a 1/2" diameter to really get it right on the button. If the parts are a form of stainless steel you may have a much harder job figuring out just what they are made of. But it can be done with acid and a few other tricks.

gary

kenbadger wrote:

we've sold an average of over 100,000 units a year for the last 20+ years.  that's 2,000,000, and that's less than half as long as we've been in business.  our rate of return is less than 1% and we constantly strive for better.  If that isn't a pretty good testament to Badger's consistent quality, I wouldn't know how to meet your apparent criteria for establishing a quality standard.

First of all: I am talking in general terms, with no intended, suggested or implied product or brand in mind!

But you asked how to improve on quality. I will sketch my opinions.

The problem:

Just to play with the numbers mentioned: 1% returns on 100,000 sold items is still on the order 1000 problems per year, or between three and four and customer contacts per day. That takes time - somebody have to attend to the calls, find and ship replacement parts - and replacements and corrections (as well as postage and handling) cost $$$. Those costs would have to be covered, either by the customer, by the manufacturer facturing them in with all the other overhead of running a company, or as 'unexpected expenses', dipping into the annual profits.  

And there is the neagtive PR to handle. We saw an example earlier in this thread, where somebody said flat out that he decided what brand to buy based on the absence of negative reviews.

Just imagine a first-time buyer of airbrushes who finds this forum to get ideas about what makes and brands of airbrushes to consider: He does not need to read any posts to get an opionon. Merely scanning the list of thread titles - this thread inclusive - would probably go a long way to suggest that one particular brand might best be avoided.

So, high numbers of customer returns cost time and $$$, and the experiences communicated throughout the user community might also turn potential buyers away from the product. Again, I am speaking in general terms with no particular product, make or brand in mind! 

Not a desireable situation.

One solution: (I do not claim it's the only one!)

The way I am used to think about such matters is that proportionality numbers don't matter; absolute numbers do. What I try to do in such situations is to find out why one gets those returns. If there are particular problems that tend to dominate - e.g. some part that tends to fail - I'd go back and find out why that happens: Either there is a design problem, a manufacturing problem, or users might not be aware how the part is intended to be handled.

So depending on what one finds in the investigation, one has a number of options:

1. Redesign the part or subassembly of the product
2. Review the manufacturing process of the part or subassembly
3. Review the documentation and operation manual that is shipped with the product 

So if one or two types of flaws or problems tend to dominate why people return the product, then a focused effort to solve or avoid the root causes of those one or two problems would save a lot of time and effort. And of course, once the two presently largest flaws or problems have been handled, there will be two others that dominate the list of remaining problems. Solve those next year, and one is even better off.

And that's how I am used to think:

1. Find out what happens
2. Find out why it happens
3. Correct the root cause / chain or event that produces the problem
4. At all times address the one or two most dominating problem, solve them, and then focus on the next ones. 
5. Never settle for 'this is good enough.'

As for item 5), there might be a lot of reasons why one steps down from the process (relative expenses sky-rocket to solve diminishingly small hickups and inconveniences, the product being replaced by a new model next year), but 'this is good enough' is the one reason that is unacceptable.

DoC

Squeakie,

I suggest that you read the thread from the beginning before you post. There are two ways to find out what the Iwata nozzle and needle were made of. Call the manufacturer or do a "scanning electron microscopy" and "Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy" study on the parts. There are so many alloys out there, the chance of guessing it right is slim.

I am not smart enough to do the study, but someone else already did.

kenbadger wrote:

I am aware and understand there is a class of super alloys, and they have been defined accurately within this thread - however, after researching these materials we could not find a logical reason to apply or market them to airbrush usage as they are for very specific potentially extreme condition applications, which airburshing is not (even in the labatory applications and production applications we manufacture them for).  The Tiger Woods analogy has nothing to do with poor quality products, as I can assure you the Nike clubs I purchased were as well manufactured as any club I evaluated prior to purchasing them - and undoubtedly had I selected a set of crooked or improperly manufactured set of clubs it would have worsened my already sub-par (actually that might be above-par) golf game.  My point was that whether I continued with or purchased a new set of my properly manufactured less expensive mizuno clubs, or spent more to get the supposedly better Tiger Woods promoted brand, or any other supposedly more elite brand, the effect on my game was going to be nominal until I myself improved as a golfer.  For the most part the same is true whether one chooses a Renegade, Sotar, H&S, Iwata Micron over a Paasche VJR, Thayer & Chandler Vega 1000, or Badger 100 they have used with sufficient success.  Just as I must commit to practicing to improve my golf skills, one must continue to improve his finishing skills through frequent practice.  Just as my golf game will improve through practice (even using my old clubs) so to will one's airbrush skills even with their old airbrush.  Yes, I will concur at some point one can improve his skills to the point a finer engineered airbrush may enable slightly finer finishing, but in my time I'm not aware of any instances where a 10 above par airbrusher (which by golf standards is pretty good) became a 3 under par airbrusher simply by changing his airbrush.  He had to improve his skill first.  As far as ease of use and maintenance, I think, in what I guess you guys would consider high end airbrushes, with the elimination of head seals and tip threads, and spring tempered and carbide polished needles the new Renegades rival anything out there.  Anything.  And although it seems to mean less and less these days - I am proud to make the Renegades right here in the United States.  Yes, Badger excels in service - a true benefit for the newbie - but we also have, as you would categorize them, high end airbrushes that rival any competitors.  I'm out.  Dr. C and Keilau - Thanks for the read and the stimulating conversation. Take air, ken Mark 10:27 www.renegadeairbrushseries.com

gary

keilau wrote:

Don Wheeler wrote: Here’s my thought. If someone is going to claim that brand X nozzles or needles are better than brand Y, then they ought to have some test data to show it. And, I don’t mean metallurgical analysis, I mean test data. As was stated, heat treatment can make a significant difference. There are ways of comparing hardness, tensile strength and wear. Show me some numbers. Lacking that, at least tell me about some personal experience that supports the claim. SUPERALLOY is a well definited engineering term that identifies a class of material that has high strength, high hardness and keeps the properties over wide range of temperatures. The materials are more expensive than common alloys and difficult to machine to precise shape. But once it is fabricated, it keeps the shape and resists to wear a lot better than other alloys. Most small manufacturers do not have the know-how nor resources to handle superalloys. But they can contract the job out. There are specialty shops who can make precision parts using exotic materials. Quantity is not necessary an issue. They make prototype parts for larger companies and small quantity for hobbyists such as race car or superbike motor cycle owners. They do excellent job, and, yes, they are quite expensive. Superalloy alone does not mean excellent airbrush nozzle, but it is a good first step. If the airbrush maker goes through this step, I expect that their design staffs have the engineering know-how to do a good job. If they also keep the final total cost down, they succeeded. I believe the feedback from Iwata airbrush users bear this out. (In my opinion, Iwata is NOT the BMW of airbrush, but rather a Toyata or Honda. Good enough for most modelers and good value for the money.) I don't think that the manufacturer needs to "have data" to prove superalloy has better "hardness, tensile strength and wear". That is common knowledge already. On the other hand, a manufacturer who claims that they have found a cheaper and easier to manufacture alloy equal to the superalloy will need to produce the tests to prove it. At the end, the choice of an airbrush is subjective and personal. The artist who needs and appreciates the best and most precise airbrush is usually not an engineer and likely don't care how his airbrush was made. He knows a good airbrush when he sees one. Don Wheeler is right about this.

gonna say it one more time: the idea of using a "superalloy" like Hastalloy or Waspalloy for a needle is lunacey!! The tool pressure alone will work harden it to something like glass! And how does one finish it after rough turning it! You'd make two bad ones for every good one! Ask somebody that's worked with the stuff, and they'll laugh you out of the place!

gary

MikeV wrote:

keilau wrote:  Dr. Coffee wrote:  Don Wheeler wrote:  keilau wrote: There are many nickel alloys. But the superalloy is a different class of material. I will be very interested if Badger can identify the superalloy that they use in their AB nozzle. This concern with the materials used to make airbrush components seems silly to me.  Who cares as long as the parts function as they should?  The nozzles and needles we are talking about here are machined to very fine tolerences.  I wouldn't be surprised if these 'superalloys' are the reason why the manufacturers are able to consitently produce nozzles that stay within specs. One would assume that parts made from 'superalloys' might be more resistant to wear and tear, meaning that such parts last longer than other parts, given the same conditions of use. In both cases the choise of alloys would be a direct contributing reason why the airbrush works as well as it does, and lasts as long as it does. DoC The choice of materials AND the manufacturing process bear directly relation to the functioning and durability of an AB. You need to use very hard alloy to make the precision nozzle which could be expensive. Cheaper alloy will not last as long. The challenge is how to use the best alloy and keep the cost down. It should be very obvious to any users. I have not used airbrush long enough to wear any one out yet. When I visit airbrush and hobby forums (airbrushforum.com, trains.com, howtoairbrush.com etc.), I found that split nozzle and bent needle are the most common problem with heavy AB usage. There were a common theme that the users switched to certain brand because they found the need to replace nozzle is much less and the needle is much less lightly to bend. Yes, it is important that the "parts function as they should". But the user also cares how long the parts function as they should. All users care about how well the AB works. Some curious type wants to know how the manufacturer does it and some don't care. I do not call those who do to be "silly". I hope that the respect will be accord to those who do want to know the details. If you don't believe the use of superalloy in airbrush nozzle makes any difference, you are entitle to your opinion. Where are you located Keilau? Just curious about the screen name.  Nobody is arguing about whether, "superalloys" make any difference or not. What bothers me personally is when untruths are posted on forums such as saying that Iwata uses some super duper metal that is perceived as the best out there and others do not as that is just total BS. In this day and age of CAD and CNC machining everyone is producing an airbrush that is of high quality or else they would be out of business in no time. The thing that I feel makes the difference in sales is perception. If airbrush maker "A" puts their ads on the full back cover of Airbrush Action Magazine month after month the sales are going to increase without a doubt!  That in no way though translates into that company's product being any better or using higher quality materials as that is not the facts. That is all my beef is on this subject. Let's not let perceived notions sway our thinking that airbrush company A is of a higher quality than company B as that is not true when it comes to the biggest names in airbrushes.  I would be willing to bet that no Iwata needle is as tough as the Sotar needle and I have a friend that has been airbrushing for 40 years and owns probably every airbrush ever made in his collection and he tested it out by shooting it into a wall like a crossbow bolt. He was amazed at how tough it really is.

Mike,

if they made the needle out of 500 series stainless or 17 thru 19 rearc melt stainless you have to give them the nod. 17ph4 is what landing gear struts are made out of for jet fighters. 500 series came around to correct the faults of hardened 400 series stainless steels (they crack and rust really bad). I don't have an iron in the fire (I do own an Iwata, but like my old time Pasche just as well), and as long as it works for me it's OK.

gary

keilau wrote:

MikeV wrote: Well said Don. Using terms like, "super alloy" is nothing more than marketing hype. Here are some explanation of what superalloy is for some non-technical person. Many of the things that we enjoy everyday and take for granted would not have been possible without the invention like this. The average airbrush user may not care about the detail of the engineering behind the Iwata, but they understand the RESULT of the engineering. There is a reason that "copycat" of the Omni and Vega airbrushes had become one of the most popular brand of airbrush.

read the link, and noted at least two errors without going into serious detail. I seriously doubt that an Iwata needle is made of Hastalloy, Waspalloy, or Iconel. Rene; I have never been around, and the other is very obsure in that world (if they still cast it). The cost of manufacturing a needle from the first two would be a killer! Not only is the stuff expensive, but Hastalloy is normally considered "unmachineable" in the metalurgy manuals (but we do everyday). Put Waspalloy in that bracket as well, but Hastalloy is even more nasty! Inconel is too soft, and is not considered a superalloy by metalurgists. Looking at an Iwata needle, it looks like it was either a 400 or 500 series stainless steel. Or probably something like 17PH4 or maybe even an 18 or 19 series stainless steel (anybody ever seen an Iwata needle rust?). My money's on the 500 series or 17 thru series 19 stainless steel in the rearc melt mode (for purity). They would still be a pain to machine, but nothing like Hastalloy! And the latter three are extremely strong and have extreme wear capabilities. Personally a needle made out of pretreated 4350 steel, and then given a .008" case in a nitride furnace is the natural answer (you'll grind and hone half of the case away).

     But there's some more thought to the subject. Japanese like to (or should I simply say are) are sorta hung up on using D2 and H13 alloys for everything these days. H13 would work very well. D2 will harden to the form that it's like glass. They like to use 15ph5 rearc melt stainless steel as well as 17ph4 as well. But not as much as H13 and D2. The finish on an Iwata sorta reminds me of D2 in some ways, but I'm sticking with 17ph4. 304 wouldn't be very good for a needle.

gary

It's all good Doc so let's all get back to the bench as we obviously have too much time on our hands.

I have to start getting ready for work.

WAITER... Never mind the fly in my soup, My original thread has been hijacked!!!!    

Folks, all great information but I'm happy with both of my Airbrushes. (Badger and Iwata) I originally wanted to know what I (ME, MYSELF and I) was doing wrong with the the paint thinning and or cleaning of my new Iwata. To be honest, both of my ABs could be made of adobe mud but if they work well for what I pay for them thats all I need.

  Since the subject seems to stir up alot of feelings in both camps I for one like both of my brushes.  Just give me a AB that doesn't cost two arms and a leg and doesn't break down, and I'm for one am a happy camper.I feel that I may have just asked the last AB question on this forum in well forever.

D

Bgrigg wrote:

Dr. C, you're messing around with semantics now.  Dr. Coffee wrote:  MikeV wrote:  Milairjunkie wrote: Time will tell if H&S can provide support to Badgers level. I seriously doubt it. Well, if customers tend to have a lot of contact with a product's customer support, there might be a reason to ask why.   DoC Milairjunkie pointed out that H&S customer service has yet to prove themselves in comparison to Badger, and you made a comment that lots of service contact could be an indication of poor quality.

That's the view I intended to present. And that's a view I will stand by.

Bgrigg wrote:

I also thought you specifically meant Badger as only H&S and Badger were mentioned in Milair's post.

If so, I phrased the post poorly. I intended to speak in general terms. As a matter of fact, I can't see how it would be possible to phrase the post more generally than I actually did.

Again, as I wrote in a different post, the easiest, fastest and cheapest problems to deal with are those that never occur.

DoC

Bgrigg wrote:

And MikeV, sorry to say, but it certainly is a peeing match. Your "doubt" post is a fine example of brand loyalty getting in the way of logic. You called into question their ability to provide service on the same level as Badger, yet you have no evidence or experience with that issue. That is an emotional response.

I said that Bill because I know things about Badger that very few of you probably know and I will leave it at that. If you want to PM me I will explain. 

Dr. C, you're messing around with semantics now.

Dr. Coffee wrote:

MikeV wrote:  Milairjunkie wrote: Time will tell if H&S can provide support to Badgers level. I seriously doubt it. Well, if customers tend to have a lot of contact with a product's customer support, there might be a reason to ask why.   DoC

Milairjunkie pointed out that H&S customer service has yet to prove themselves in comparison to Badger, and you made a comment that lots of service contact could be an indication of poor quality. I also thought you specifically meant Badger as only H&S and Badger were mentioned in Milair's post.

The fact that Badger is known for excellent service only points out that any perceived issues were dealt with in a way that the customer was satisfied with the end results. I'm willing to bet that the majority of service claims are due to the user causing a problem, rather than an issue with the quality of the AB itself. After all, ABs are really quite simple tools, and have few moving parts that would cause problems on their own. You own anecdote about needing to get a new needle suggests that it was an error on your part, and not an issue with H&S, that was the problem. They sent you a new needle free of charge, which tells me that they also stand behind their product even if they aren't at fault. At that level of service, there is no discernible difference in service between the two companies.

And MikeV, sorry to say, but it certainly is a peeing match. Your "doubt" post is a fine example of brand loyalty getting in the way of logic. You called into question their ability to provide service on the same level as Badger, yet you have no evidence or experience with that issue. That is an emotional response.

You KNOW I'm a supporter of Badger, but I do not hesitate to recommend Iwata and Paasche as comparable products even though I have limited experience with either brand. I find the Paasche handle chunky and prefer thinner handles, and I know people who think the Badger handle is too thin. Keilau has correctly pointed out (in other threads) that sometimes Badger parts can be difficult to source locally, and I've found that in my town it's Iwata parts that are not stocked. It doesn't make any of us wrong. It's just different strokes for different folks.

When someone asks what airbrush is best, I try to educate what the differences are so they can make an informed decision, and I include parts availability as a major part of the decision making process. I always lead with Badger, as I have experience with their ABs, but continue to offer up other solutions. Badger tends to be difficult to find in Australia, for instance, so I'll recommend Iwata to our friends Down Under. 

And I think I've said enough on this matter!

MikeV wrote:

Dr. Coffee wrote:  kenbadger wrote: I appreciate your fondness for the H & S product - it is indeed a well made product, but please don't knock Badger's high level of quality in your endorsment of theirs.  It is unjust and the numbers indicate your implication is incorrect. I have never intended to knock anyone's products. I do make an effort not to comment specifically on products I do not have hands-on experience with. Yes Doc but you did say: Well, if customers tend to have a lot of contact with a product's customer support, there might be a reason to ask why. Which implies that Badger products are inferior if their customers need service and I am not the only one who read it that way as Ken addressed it as well.

Again, where do I mention specific products or brands? To the extent I know the Engilsh language, 'a product' is as generic as it gets.  

DoC 

Bgrigg wrote:

This is the sort of peeing match I tried to prevent with my earlier post.

Dr. Coffee wrote:

kenbadger wrote: I appreciate your fondness for the H & S product - it is indeed a well made product, but please don't knock Badger's high level of quality in your endorsment of theirs.  It is unjust and the numbers indicate your implication is incorrect. I have never intended to knock anyone's products. I do make an effort not to comment specifically on products I do not have hands-on experience with.

Yes Doc but you did say:

Well, if customers tend to have a lot of contact with a product's customer support, there might be a reason to ask why.

Which implies that Badger products are inferior if their customers need service and I am not the only one who read it that way as Ken addressed it as well.  

kenbadger wrote:

I appreciate your fondness for the H & S product - it is indeed a well made product, but please don't knock Badger's high level of quality in your endorsment of theirs.  It is unjust and the numbers indicate your implication is incorrect.

I have never intended to knock anyone's products. I do make an effort not to comment specifically on products I do not have hands-on experience with. I can't remember to ever have said anything specific about any other product than my H&S - except possibly that I might have mentioned the Revell I first bought, that did not fit my purpose. If I my memory is incorrect, please let me know.

And of course, I would appreciate if you made similar efforts to discourage other posters from commenting on specifics with products they do not have hands-on experience with.

DoC