HENKEL QPL APPROVED CONVERSION COATINGS for the Aerospace Industry. Henkel Corporation. Stephenson Highway. Madison Heights. 18 Feb MIL-DTL under authorization of (reference authorizing letter). .. Products List, QPL, whether or not such products have actually. Title: MIL-C, Date: Jun, Status: Active, Desc: CHEMICAL CONVERSION MATERIALS FOR COATING ALUMINUM AND ALUMINUM ALLOYS (
|Published (Last):||7 November 2013|
|PDF File Size:||5.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The way you stated your write-up, the auditor questioned your using the Mil spec and qpl 81706 to AMS, or where the process specified the AMS spec.
Standard: NAVY – QPL-81706-QPD
By the way, the letter in the Mil and Fed specs is merely the first letter in the title of the specification. Nothing like a conversation that spans a few years! I don’t know what “Grade C” means — sorry. This is the “theoretical standard” to be met under ideal conditions. I find no reference that this has actually happened. I have to say I’m not certain of the difference between a ‘detail’ specification and a ‘performance’ specification such as MIL-PRF [link is to free spec at Qpl 81706 Logistics Qpl 81706, dla.
All information presented is for qpl 81706 reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author’s employer.
Kansas City, Missouri A. April 28, Qpl 81706, Probably the answer you are looking for is from Lee Gearhart up near the top qpl 81706 the page from The only thing I can discern is the performance of the coating; test samples are allowed corrosion after testing and samples aren’t?
Best of Luck, Ira Donovan, M. I wouldn’t do it; I’d get some material made for touching up Type II. We appended your question to a thread which hopefully answers it for you.
First, the Department of Defense still qpl 81706 the Mil-CE an active document for aluminum chromating. I hope qpl 81706 someone can help us out. Thanks for your help and linking my question to a previous thread.
The AMS spec is currently used by several aerospace manufacturers, and as such, you would 817006 required to conform to the requirements qpl 81706 that spec. January qpl 81706, A. In that case, Class 3, is for “protection against corrosion where low electrical resistance is required” and you would spec Type I for qol containing qpl 81706 chromium” or Type 2 for “Compositions containing no hexavalent chromium” which would be the new TCP formulations.
It’s not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages.
HENKEL QPL-81706 APPROVED CONVERSION COATINGS
Though obviously everybody should qll looking at revision Qpl 81706 rather than the older copies. There are two sides to the story as 81076 read it. Because of that, I qpl 81706 you are not asking quite the qpl 81706 question.
Is there a technical concern if my part were to have been initially chemical conversion coated with type 1 material and then touched-up in small areas with type II material qpl 81706 there was mechanical damage to the part that required metal to be removed to flatten out a dent and remove a burr?
I think the right “update” for Mil-C [link by ed. This is the “practical standard” to be met under real life conditions of manufacturing.
So if you’re qpp to Mil-C, all the requirements are there. Janiece, if the NADCAP folks insist on playing specsmanship games, they should know that Mil-CE is a correct, current, qpl 81706 active document for chemical conversion coating on aluminum and aluminum alloys.
Could you please give your advice? Is this coating Qpl 81706 compliant?
Allowance is made for qpl 81706 tolerances and consumption of the chemical after processing several lots, hence an allowance for slight corrosion. 881706 10, A. But my interim understanding is that DTL is an abbreviation for ‘detail’ and it is used when a spec requires that certain “process details” be adhered to, as opposed to just being a qpl 81706 spec. It doesn’t have to make sense.