What is the difference between MIL-CE and MIL-DTLF? What about AMS-C and QPL / MIL-DTL?. What is the recommended usable temperature range for MIL-DTLB Type II Class 3A on aluminum sheet, for corrosion protection and low electrical. 25 Oct CHEMICAL CONVERSION MATERIALS FOR COATING ALUMINUM AND ALUMINUM ALLOYS (SUPERSEDING MIL-DTLA).
|Published (Last):||23 August 2007|
|PDF File Size:||7.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Your email address will be kept confidential.
So new standards were written but old ones are not cancelled, etc. Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets Over the last 10 years we have developed hundreds of spreadsheet tools to mil dtl 81706b us with our structural analysis work.
The way you stated your write-up, the auditor questioned your using the Mil spec and qualifying to AMS, or where the process specified the AMS spec. However, there are some instances where comments will be edited or mil dtl 81706b.
We appended your question to a thread drl hopefully answers it for you. The only thing I can discern is the performance of the coating; test samples are allowed corrosion after testing and samples aren’t? We have now brought them into the technical library. Thanks mil dtl 81706b your comments!
I wouldn’t mil dtl 81706b it; I’d get some material made for touching up Type II. Thanks for your help and linking my question to a previous thread. There 81706h two sides to the story as I read it. I hope that someone can help us out. Comments that attack an individual person or group will be deleted.
MIL-DTLB(AMENDMENT1) : Abbott Aerospace SEZC Ltd.
Hey, at least they upped the revision letter! In that case, Class 3, is for “protection against corrosion where low electrical resistance mil dtl 81706b required” and you would spec Type I for “Compositions containing hexavalent chromium” or Type 2 for “Compositions containing no hexavalent chromium” which would be the new TCP formulations.
This public forum has 60, threads. This is mil dtl 81706b “theoretical standard” to be met under ideal conditions. Comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam will be deleted.
Comments are welcomed and encouraged on AbbottAerospace. Links to relevant content are permitted in comments. March 28, A. This comment policy is subject to change at anytime.
It’s been a confusing few years as it seems that the feds were trying to move specs from the Mil system to AMS standards, Mil dtl 81706b. If you have any reference material that you would like to see included in the library mil dtl 81706b would love mil dtl 81706b hear from you.
This looks like a good place to post the related question: Comments are moderated and will not be published until approved. They have been updated, improved and the collection has been expanded to cover more analysis methods than ever before.
I was not able to find MIL-C spec on the net, is it still active? This is the “practical standard” to be met under real life conditions of manufacturing.
Though obviously everybody should be looking at revision F rather than the older copies.
I don’t know what “Grade C” means — sorry. I find no reference that this has actually happened. Subscribe me to the 87106b Aerospace Newsletter. Janiece, if the NADCAP folks insist on playing specsmanship games, they should know mil dtl 81706b Mil-CE is a correct, current, and active document for chemical conversion coating on aluminum and aluminum alloys.
Could you please give your advice?