Why conventional preparation methods fall short, and what the costs really are
vs. solvent and chemical cleaning: Landing gear components arrive coated in compacted contamination: asphalt deposits, Skydrol, brake dust, hydraulic fluid, and layered paint systems. Chemical degreasers remove surface oils, but they are single-function. Paint removal requires a separate sequential operation, each step adding handling time and documented process control requirements. Several common solvents, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and n-propyl bromide (nPB), carry serious occupational health risks, face tightening regulatory controls, and can cause hydrogen embrittlement in high-strength steel struts and torque links if process discipline lapses. The disposal and compliance burden of chemical cleaning is one that MRO operators are increasingly unable to justify.
vs. dry blasting: Dry blasting removes scale and paint at speed, but introduces risks that are difficult to manage on safety-critical components. Media particles can embed in the surface substrate, filling micro-discontinuities that dye penetrant inspection (DPI) and eddy current testing (ECT) must later reveal, producing false-negative NDT results. On ferrous components, dry blast media generates charged particles and dust that present static hazards. The accuracy cost of pre-NDT dry blasting is invisible until it isn’t.
vs. manual hand scrubbing and chemical paint stripping: Manual preparation relies entirely on operator skill, is inconsistent part-to-part, and is time-consuming at scale. Documented repeatability, a core requirement of regulated MRO, is difficult to achieve and audit-prove with manual methods. Wet blasting automates and records all critical parameters, producing a surface that is consistent and traceable.
Find out how wet blasting compares with other finishing processes