I know painters spend thousands on spray equipment. And, I assume that they
have to figure those costs into the job. But, I assume that they buy and
use the spray equipment because it saves them time and is more efficient
overall for certain types of jobs. But, if the cost of the equipment isn't
significantly offset by the amount time they save, then there would be no
reason for the contractor or the customer to choose spraying over
traditional painting methods. (Just being a devil's advocate here).

As far as me renting the sprayer and doing it myself, I probably shouldn't
do that, but I have a bad feeling that that's what I'm going to end up
doing. Year's ago, a friend and I spray painted an old house and it worked
out okay. However, he was the son of a professional painter and I was just
a helper. More recently, I tried this myself on the second floor of a house
(4 bedrooms and a hallway) and made one gigantic mess -- including setting
off the fire alarm system and having the fire department show up while I was
painting.

With this property that I just bought, I'm trying to get myself into the
mode of just hiring people to do the work and paying them. But, I am a real
do-it-yourself (screw-it-up-yourself-first) type person, so it's hard for me
to let go of that.

"mark Ransley" wrote in message
...
It could be cheaper ,id depends on the painter and his work load.
Contractors spend thousands on spray equipment , why should they do it
for alot less. Your idea is good, rent a sprayer it goes fast.