What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Is A/C Spruce selling bogus fittings?

RV4er

Well Known Member
Here is the scoop. I ordered two AN822 fittings from A/C Spruce. When they arrived I noticed something very different then any AN or MS fitting I have seen before. The fittings had no markings of any kind on them. I went to my junk drawer and started looking through all the fittings I have and all of them are stamped with either AN or MS.

I called A/C Spruce to inquire about a certification tag for them. The lady was very kind and assured me that she would call me back the next day to let me know what she found out. A week later after she didn't call me back I called them back. A different gal this time. She informed me that they buy these fittings by the 1,000's and not to worry about it. They were fine. After explaining that these were going into my fuel system in the cockpit I explained the importance that these were the real thing. She informed me that they were not going to provide a certification tag to me for every time I had a question about their hardware. That is where the conversation ended.

Am I wrong here? This is the first time I have ever inquired about something I have bought from them. I am not 100% sure they are bogus but believe I have a right to ask for a cert tag if something is in question.

The photo shows a fitting I already had and the new one. What do you think?

dsc00255tp2.jpg
 
I wouldn't worry about it. The 14,000 rivets in my airplane didn't have stamps, and neither do maybe a third of the A/N fittings in my miscellaneous fitting pile (I just took a look).

But, in the end, you are the person who decides what goes into your airplane. If you insist on your fittings having stamps or a clear paperwork trail, you get to make that decision. I think you'll have a hard time finding a reasonably priced supplier who will provide a certification tag for every nut, bolt, and fitting, but I could be wrong. ;-)
 
I agree that that fitting looks quite different from every other AN fitting I've seen. I have no idea what that means, though.
 
When a suppler purchases hardware, fittings, etc. in quantity, the "lot" has certification paperwork with it. They should be tracking what "lots" they're selling from, and be willing to provide you a copy of the certification paperwork associated with that lot.

Does your invoice or packing list make a statement that the parts sent to you are not intended to be installed on a certified aircraft? Unless a supplier has made this disclaimer, then they can and should provide you some type of certification paper trail.

Just my .02.
 
Being cautious

Aircraft Spruce sends customers to me, and us to them, and we have an appreciation for each other, but back to the fitting.

To be certified it needs to have "MS" on the flat side for that one "MS20822-6D"

The later spec (yup they are changing again) will require an "AS" on the flat.

Sometimes the marking does get missed in a large batch.

The finish looks more like a commercial anodize from an auto supply product line, BUT, I have not seen the papers that they received with the lot of parts that they bought, so I cant make a firm statement.

There are times when traceable packaging is nice, even to us experimental guys. With it they would be able to produce such paperwork.

They seem to be easy to work with, I would ask them if they would kindly exchange it for one with the required markings on it. :)
 
Great Close-up Pictures

Hey Tim what kind of camera did you use for these pictures? There sharp as a tack and the color is extremely vivid. Really nice close-up.
 
"I wouldn't worry about it" and "you are the one who decides what goes into your aircraft".
When I buy aircraft fittings and fasteners, I want to be certain they are made to spec. This ensures than AN fittings are forged rather than cast (where porosity may be a problem) and fasteners such as spar bolts have proper heat treatment and strength. In the 1990s, congress passed a fastener quality and identification act. This was in large part the result of military aircraft experiencing structural failures that were tied to sub-standard fasteners. Today, structural fasteners must not only contain source and grade markings, but must be manufactured with material and manufacturing lot tracability. While end users (builders) are unlikely to have access to certifications (or be able to understand them), the distributors to companies such as AC Spruce must have these on file. Failure to do so can result in some substantial penalties to both the business and its principals.
As aircraft manufacturers, it's in our best interest to make every effort to be certain we're using proper AC hardware and materials.
 
Tim,

Please keep us posted on what you find out. I just bought a lot of AN822s and AN823s, and they all look like yours (no AN or MS markings, shinier than normal, etc.)

Thanks,
Scott
 
That second fitting looks like a cheap import to me. The "import" part doesn't bother me as much as the "looks cheap" part. I'm building an experimental airplane but the fuel system, engine, and structural members all get "real live" airplane parts. I'd get it exchanged.
 
Tim, I used to work out at the Nevada Test Site. As you can imagine, any parts or supplies out there have to be manufactured to very strict standards. One of the BIG problems we had was with conterfit parts. Sometimes these parts would be mixed in with real parts but they could not pass the inspection standards. If you looked at one, it might not be very obvious at first that it was conterfit. In tracking these parts, it was discovered that they were coming from trusted vendors that had bought them in bulk from some supplier. Often made in Korea, China, Mexico, etc. Example, bolts without the proper head stamp or no head stamp that would fail the shear or tensil strength tests. We need Paul Dye to chime in here with his experience at NASA. I'm sure he would be able to tell some related stories. How about it Paul?
Mike Hope
8SB
Fusalage
 
I forgot where exactly I saw it, but in my many visits to ACS, they have posted that they reserve the right NOT to provide paper trail for their hardware/fittings.
 
No stamp - no spec. part

osxuser said:
I forgot where exactly I saw it, but in my many visits to ACS, they have posted that they reserve the right NOT to provide paper trail for their hardware/fittings.

True... but if they are advertising AN (or Mil Spec MS) fittings, then they should meet the spec.

I think supplying a real ANxxx part is a different issue from giving you the paper trail... :rolleyes:

I don't have a copy of the spec. here, but as a previous poster said, they should be stamped "AN" - or later parts "MS"

No stamp... it doesn't meet the spec.... i.e. it's not a true ANxxx part.

Question ... would any A&Ps on this list have reservations on putting this part on a certified aircraft where the parts manual calls for a ANxxx part?

gil in Tucson
 
Good on you Tim for raising this matter. Who would've thought that you could go to ACS and order an AN part number for a crucial aircraft system and get a cheap imported auto part with absolutely no pedigree.

A quick look at the ACS catalogue shows all their similar fittings under the title AN Fittings. And further, each one has an AN part number. Purchasers therefore have a right to expect that the parts are genuine AN fittings.

The fact that ACS supplies specifically to the aviation world makes the matter even worse.

ACS have some explaining to do.
 
I agree, if someone sells something under a certain label ie.AN , thats what it should be . That shiny dayglo blue fitting does not look like a AN fitting ive ever seen.

I have on several occasions bought from ACS and the fittings were the real thing.

I would definitely ask for a replacement . But then again thats only my opinion. I guess that the tube is a much weaker part than the fitting. But thats not the point. EJ
 
Serious

This is serious gentlemen! In the first place, it could be false advertizing and secondly, if we use it in a fuel system in the cockpit, a failure could be catastrophic.

You need to get hold of Jim Irwin (ACS owner), I believe and I hope that one of our lawyers on this forum chimes in regarding the misrepresentation of aircraft parts as AN or MS without substantiation.

We pay good money for high standard aircraft parts and if they are cheapo imports, God only knows what they're made of!

My .02
 
treeez said:
We need Paul Dye to chime in here with his experience at NASA. I'm sure he would be able to tell some related stories. How about it Paul?
Mike Hope

AT the operational level (the end of the entire design and production process...), we rarely hear about counterfeit parts - the bottom line is that we spend an insane amount if time tracking each and very part that goes into a manned space vehicle, so while I am sure that the folks at the front end of the pipeline sometimes see this kind for thing, it gets weeded out long before I become aware. We sometimes say that we track our parts from the point that the metal is taken out of the mine. Seriously, I think that we can probably tell you the name of the guy that mixed the dynamite that was used to blast the ore at the mine ...... And THAT, my friends is expensive! ;)

Back on topic - I'd be very concerned about getting a part billed as "AN" that didn't have a part number. It's either bogus or defective - by definition.
 
Ironflight said:
AT the operational level (the end of the entire design and production process...), we rarely hear about counterfeit parts - the bottom line is that we spend an insane amount if time tracking each and very part............ And THAT, my friends is expensive! ....
I can pretty much echo the same thing about my production experience at McDonnell-Douglas. Long before hardware got stocked in the bins on the shop floor, each and every lot had to clear a Quality Assurance lab first. A single fluid fitting for example would be contained within a heat-sealed bag labeled with a ubiquitous bar code.
 
<<... it could be false advertizing ....>>

I am much concerned. We buy from the aviation supply houses to be sure of getting a top quality spec part. Trust is fundamental to the transaction. I hope somebody at ASC takes this seriously; loss of trust equals loss of business.

Trust aside, if that is in fact a cheap look-alike part, I'm pretty sure it would meet the definition of fraud.

<<She informed me that they buy these fittings by the 1,000's and not to worry about it. They were fine.>>

Good example of how even a well-intentioned business can get nailed for fraud. My state Supreme Court defines it (in part) as a misrepresetation of fact "made willfully to deceive or recklessly without knowledge". In other words, failing to check the source and quality makes them guilty; no need for an intentional attempt to defraud.
 
Traceability.

terrykohler said:
"I wouldn't worry about it" and "you are the one who decides what goes into your aircraft".
When I buy aircraft fittings and fasteners, I want to be certain they are made to spec. This ensures than AN fittings are forged rather than cast (where porosity may be a problem) and fasteners such as spar bolts have proper heat treatment and strength. In the 1990s, congress passed a fastener quality and identification act. This was in large part the result of military aircraft experiencing structural failures that were tied to sub-standard fasteners. Today, structural fasteners must not only contain source and grade markings, but must be manufactured with material and manufacturing lot tracability. While end users (builders) are unlikely to have access to certifications (or be able to understand them), the distributors to companies such as AC Spruce must have these on file. Failure to do so can result in some substantial penalties to both the business and its principals.
As aircraft manufacturers, it's in our best interest to make every effort to be certain we're using proper AC hardware and materials.

Hate to start a bigger uproar, but,

Distributors are not yet regulated by the FAA.

We maintain traceability voluntarily and all our items with aircraft part numbers are in lot traceable packaging with the MANUF NAME/LOT#/OUR PO#/OUR RECEIPT#,because that is what most of OUR CUSTOMERS require, and we like to be able to live up to our name. This information when retained (some just throw it away) allows us to go back to our file cabinets and dig out all that we have on file. For a/c items always a cert from where we got it. We almost always have the original manufacturers certs, and when we pay extra (yes they charge us) Chemical & Physical certifications as well.

Loosely quoted from memory of the FAR's on this one.

It is the responsibility of the installing person or agency, to insure the airworthiness of the parts or components being installed.

Admittedly its been a while since I was running a repair station and ask if anyone has the exact wording to feel free to expound. The point is it is up to us to make sure you are getting the product and the quality you expect.

Thats what started this, the gentleman wanted to be sure his fitting met the specs.

Lots of input and good information, remember you will be the installing agency.
;)

If anyone wants further info, please PM me, I could go on and on, but this thread is not the place, the larger issue is not about one fitting or one supplier.
 
?automotive?

Tim,

Someone mentioned it could be automotive. I looked at the pic you posted and it is difficult to tell. You should double check the angle on the "nipple" end. If it is automotive it will be different than the 37 degree angle that aircraft AN fittings should be.
 
Automotive emulations

Look in an Aeroquip performance, Jeggs, Summit or Goodridge catalog or websites. All these blue anodized fittings are either real AN/MS, or copies. They have 37 degree flares.
 
re: automotive fitting/flare angle

a nearby fellow builder and i had tech visits last night from our local eaa tech advisor. he informed us that military, aviation, and automotive racing fittings are 37 degree. i just went to summitracing.com, and this appears to be correct -- they have several fittings that are labeled "an-6 size" or "an-8 size". i think the "size" qualifier disclaims it from being an actual an fitting.

john
 
I thought I had read somewhere before where automotive flares and aircraft flares were not the same, but I could be hallucinating ....... :confused:
 
You are correct.

You are correct, :) didn't mean to throw you off.

The after market automotive racing product have been using or copying the Aircraft Fittings form fit and function, just not certification.

True Automotive is 45 degrees, Aircraft is 37 degree, JIC (typically trucks and some tractors) are as aircraft 37 degrees.

Hope this helps.
 
Captain Avgas said:
The fact that ACS supplies specifically to the aviation world makes the matter even worse.

ACS have some explaining to do.

Actually, this may be the source of the problem. The last time I was at Spruce I saw that they produce a smaller version of their catalog with boats and cars on the cover. I didn't open it, but assumed it was directed at the race car crowd.
 
Fittings

Don't know about the validity of it but, I spoke with our local race car shop here in Phx area, (Loper's) about this. He said race cars all use 37 degree fittings now. More importantly he said the car versions are stronger than the aviation ones because of the extreme pressures some of the car systems produce. I told him it was for an airplane. He said he has never seen a fitting fail during use, hoses yes, but not fittings. He related he would not have any problems using them on an airplane. Many of us in the Phx area have purchased fittings from them.

They look and feel the same as an AN or MS. I used a few of them when in a pinch. Beats waiting for an order to show and saves shipping. Same price as the AN's from Spruce.

I'd bet they are probably made at the same place with the appropriate stamps applied depending on who ordered them.

If a 4000 hp Funny Car or Top fuel can use them, I think the 67 psi of oil pressure we run won't create too much concern.
 
I use similar fittings (JIC) and stainless lines for my air business, I have an awful lot of hours under high vibration and 6000 psi on these fittings and stainless lines, I've learned to trust them under the worst kind of conditions. They may not have an AN or MS stamp on them, but they are cheap, readily available, and have proven their viability.

It's a comfort level we are trying to achieve, not a particular stamp on a fitting. For most, the stamp grants the comfort level in the absence of proven performance. On top of that, stainless has horrible heat transfer characteristics, and as such would be an ideal fuel line for FWF. Less heat absorption = less vapor lock exposure.
 
Bogus Fittings?

The questionable fitting appears much different than the AN fitting. The threads look rough, with scratches and sharp edges on the threads. The fitting looks like a casting, and not radiused like the AN fitting.

If we are going to pay top dollar for AN fittings we can trust to put in our planes, we should be able to get ANY vendor to satisfy our trust by supplying us with certification paperwork.

Any vendor should be eager to assure us of their reliability, especially when the required stampings are missing, and the quality appears to be different than the genuine article.

Why should we pay $10 for a casting that costs 3 cents to make? We can buy cheap automotive stuff anywhere. We choose to pay for quality and we should expect our vendors to be able to prove their goods are genuine.

Thanks for the heads-up
Dan Babenco
RV-7A Fuselage
 
Doesn't Meet Spec

According to the Procurement Spec MIL-F-5509 which is pointed to by the AN822 spec, these parts are supposed to be marked with "AN" or "MS". Since we're purchasing what ACS clearly lists as AN Hardware, I would expect to see parts that meet the AN spec. This clearly does not, and I would send them back for replacement. If they need more of a reason I would argue that the parts are defective (don't meet spec), and even venture so far as to say, as others have noted, that they are misrepresented (no proof that they're AN Hardware, and when it comes down to it, from what the spec says it's not AN Hardware).

AN hardware is clearly defined in specifications... sure since we're not building military fighters the fact that '1 in a 1000' are missing the stamp may be acceptable to some. But, when "AN hardware" is being advertised and priced as AN hardware, we have a right to expect it to be what the spec says is AN Hardware.
 
DOD dropped AN and has gone to AS

If you do a little research, you will find that DOD dropped AN fittings and switched to AS 7 years ago.

http://www.dscc.dla.mil/Programs/MilSpec/ListDocs.asp?BasicDoc=SAE

An example AN832.

http://www.dscc.dla.mil/Downloads/MilSpec/Docs/AN832/an832not1.pdf

From the above document:
AIR FORCE/NAVY AERONAUTICAL STANDARD
UNION - FLARED TUBE, 3/8 BULKHEAD AND UNIVERSAL
AN832 REV 8, dated 2 August 1983, is hereby cancelled. Future acquisitions for this item should refer to Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Standard (AS) AS5406, "Fitting, Union, Tube, .375 Bulkhead."

If we go back to the orgional post, you will see an OLD fitting and a NEW fitting.

How many posts are there in the THREAD that are in ERROR?

I think this should go to show that the info we get from a forum post may only be worth as much as we paid for it.
 
Last edited:
Any Marking required?

RV6_flyer said:
......
If we go back to the orgional post, you will see an OLD fitting and a NEW fitting.

How many posts are there in the THREAD that are in ERROR?

I think this should go to show that the info we get from a forum post may only be worth as much as we paid for it.

Gary... did you pull up the applicable AS spec. at work?

Since I retired, I can't do that any more.... :(

Does the AS spec have any specific marking requirements?

If not, is Earl's Racing down on Hawthorne Blvd. going to start delivering Mil. quality parts? - they are still there, right.... :)

In general, the first revision of the AS specs. are exactly the same as the Mil-spec. they replaced... I find it hard to think there is no identifying requirement on the part....

gil in Tucson
 
SAE standard

Tim,

I believe the SAE standard for the 90 degree fitting is AS5195, Rev C.

According to the standard there should be an identification mark on the fitting. (note 5) (not quite exact quote but) : Indentification at location shown (diagram on page one of standard) ..... Mark per AS478 ...... manufacturers name, code/trademark, the letters "AS" and material code letter.

Doesn't sound like an legal replacement to the old AN MS aircraft part.

Hope this helps.
 
Details

Craig-RV8a said:
Tim,

I believe the SAE standard for the 90 degree fitting is AS5195, Rev C.

According to the standard there should be an identification mark on the fitting. (note 5) (not quite exact quote but) : Indentification at location shown (diagram on page one of standard) ..... Mark per AS478 ...... manufacturers name, code/trademark, the letters "AS" and material code letter.

Doesn't sound like an legal replacement to the old AN MS aircraft part.

Hope this helps.

Now that makes sense.... :D

...thanks for the real details....

gil in Tucson
 
We have an opening in the QA dept.

You guys are getting pretty good at all this spec stuff.

I do have an opening for another QA/receiving position, full or part time. ;)
 
Very interesting. I did not know of the switch from AN/MS to SAE spec.

No apparent markings on Tim's mystery fitting per the SAE standard (page 4, note 5). Tim, any markings on the flip side?

See note 4 also. The spec seems to include procurement from a manufacturer on the PRI QML list. Wonder where Spruce got this one?

So far it still looks like a bogus substitute. I'd prefer to be wrong. Gary, you didn't think it was bogus. Why?
 
We have an entertaining group, don't we! We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!
 
<<We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!>>

No I don't. Apparently you missed the point. This has nothing to do with car parts and uncertified components, when the builder knowingly chooses to use them.

The issue is the sale of a part represented as meeting an aviation standard, when in fact it may not meet that standard.

The ultimate issue is trust; can you order a spec part from this vendor and be confident that you are getting the spec quality?

In the case of Tim's fitting, I sincerely hope Spruce can and will demonstrate compliance with the AN spec they represented.
 
Gotta Laugh?

?We have an entertaining group, don't we! We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!?

However, as a builder I have the right to choose what goes into my airplane. If I purchase an ?AN? part that is advertised and sold as an approved part then I expect an approved part. There are some things on my airplane that I don?t skimp on. The fuel system is one of them. If a fuel fitting breaks in flight, at the least my engine will stop producing power. At the worst a fire will began and I and my passenger will die.

In answer to two questions that were asked.

?Are there markings on the other side of the fitting? No there are no markings anywhere on the two fittings.

?What camera did I use? It is a 6 mega pixel Sony Cybershot
 
RV4er said:
?We have an entertaining group, don't we! We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!?

I was actually waiting to hear from the Subaru guys!
 
I have substituted Earls AN type fittings in some cases where Aeroquip or similar does not make what I need. Earls has been producing aluminum fittings for about 45 years. It's good stuff, race proven. For any high stress/ temp areas, I'm now using steel fittings. For those really worried about fuel in the cockpit area, these will never break.

I would worry in some cases about some offshore aluminum products. I've seen some bogus junk that does not meet specs including stamped raw billet.

It's funny how Spruce is usually so good about service most of the time and then occasionally they get really uncooperative, especially on materials issues. If you are paying for real AN hardware, it should be real AN hardware.

This being said, our RVs are uncertified and typically have many other uncertified parts in them. Use what you are comfortable with and follow good installation and fab practices and you probably won't have problems with even bogus fittings. Do dumb things like hanging heavy assemblies off aluminum fittings or using rigid lines in high vibration/ high movement areas and eventually you will have a failure even with the "good stuff" in there.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
... This has nothing to do with car parts and uncertified components, when the builder knowingly chooses to use them.

The issue is the sale of a part represented as meeting an aviation standard, when in fact it may not meet that standard...
Dan, thanks for your comments... very well said!

Tim, the AN822 hardware you originally inquired about could theoretically be manufactured under any of three different specs: AN822 (inactive for design after 30 Jan ?57), MS20822 (replaced AN822, but then cancelled in Sep ?00), or the current spec AS5195. Bottom line is all 3 of these specs indicate the fittings should have identifying markings on them (?AN?, ?MS?, or ?AS?).

Me personally, I would send them back. But that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
RV4er said:
?We have an entertaining group, don't we! We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!?

Yeah it's a shame we have to down grade our car parts by putting them in with aviation quality grade parts!
 
datapoint from the factory

Yukon said:
We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!
I checked all of the fittings supplied to me by Vans, and every single one is marked as in the posts above, even the nuts. Since the kit manufacturer is choosing to supply me with "highest aviation quality" components, I think I will too!
 
Certified parts

Have a related story re. parts from ACS. Needed to rebuild/replace the carb air box on my old, certified, factory built, "classic" spam can. A couple possibles depicted in the catalog *looked* like they'd work, going by the pictures and written descriptions. One was described as "not FAA certified". Another, which was the one I ordered the first time around, said NOTHING re. FAA certification. What would you infer from such descriptions? Turns out the first part was the wrong size, something you could not determine from the catalog description. Ended up ordering the "not certified" part, but only after having the phone sales rep actually pull the part and measuring a key dimension. A little inquiry into where these carb air boxes available/listed in the ACS catalog actually came from. The answer was literally something along the line of "made by some guy in his garage", and was advised further, to consider everything in the catalog as not FAA approved unless specifically described as being otherwise.
Light Plane Maintenance just did a story on replacing these boxes and summed up the situation as a catch 22 where you're not going to find a certified replacement part, as no one is going to go to the trouble of providing same for such a low value item, and summed it all up as "an area where the regs need to be changed".
Lessons learned:
1) experimental aviation is the only way to go
2) re. "aviation parts", buyer beware
 
Missing the point

Yukon said:
We have an entertaining group, don't we! We require Mil Spec, lot traceable fluid fittings of the highest aviation quality, but are perfectly satisfied running car parts or uncertified components right next to them. Come on guys, you just gotta laugh!


Sorry John, you're out of touch on this one. This is not about using aviation or non aviation parts...it's about getting milspec aviation components when you order them and not being sold cheap fakes.

You might be quite happy to wear a fake Rolex...but I'll bet you wouldn't be at all happy if you paid for a genuine one and were sold a fake.

Some automotive fittings might be fine, but the stuff comes with no pedigree so the unmarked fittings you buy from ACS today may not be from the same source or of the same quality as the unmarked fittings you buy next month.

You cannot have consistent QA without product specifications. When a product is purchased purely on price there is no bottom to the barrel as far as quality is concerned...always there will be a supplier ready to make a nastier sh*ttier product at a cheaper price. That's why milspec exists.
 
IowaRV9Dreamer said:
http://www.tracepartsonline.net/PartsDefs/10-28062005-073077/documents/AS5195.pdf
I like the good info in this thread - I learned a lot from reading the AS spec.
How many of us have read the above spec?

Read note 18.
/18/ PART NUMBERS WITH MATERIAL CODE LETTER D ARE INACTIVE FOR NEW DESIGN OF 2000-01. USE PART NUMBERS WITH W MATERIAL CODE LETTER FOR NEW DESIGN.

Note 1:
/1/ MATERIAL:
...
c. CODE LETTER D ? TYPE 2014-T6 ALUMINUM ALLOY FORGING PER AMS 4133, OR TYPE 2024-T6 ALUMINUM ALLOY BAR PER AMS-QQ-A-225/6, OR TYPE 2024-T851 ALUMINUM ALLOY BAR PER AMS-QQ-A-225/6 OR AMS 4339. /2/ /18/
...
g. CODE LETTER W ? TYPE 7075-T73 ALUMINUM ALLOY FORGING PER AMS 4141, OR TYPE 7075-T73 ALUMINUM ALLOY BAR PER AMS-QQ-A-225/9, OR TYPE 7075-T7351 ALUMINUM ALLOY BAR PER AMS 4124. /2/

Sounds like the new fittings we should be using are a different alloy.


Now Note 5:
/5/ IDENTIFICATION AT LOCATION SHOWN: MARK PER AS478 CLASS C OR D, OR METHOD 7A3, 15A3, OR 15B.
a. FOR SIZES 06 AND SMALLER: MANUFACTURER'S NAME, CAGE CODE OR TRADEMARK, LETTERS "AS" AND MATERIAL CODE LETTER.
b. FOR SIZES 08 AND LARGER: MANUFACTURER'S NAME, CAGE CODE OR TRADEMARK, BASIC PART NUMBER AND MATERIAL CODE LETTER.

To me that sounds like 3 lines on 3/8 and smaller fittings and 4 lines on 1/2 and larger.

Going to AS478 Rev M: (The document is 16 pages long and not quoted here in it [font=&quot]entirety[/font].)
3.2.1 Items which require more than one identification number, such as item number, serial number, etc., shall have each number on a separate line; or consecutive identification numbers on the same line shall be separated by no less than two spaces. The separation or division of the digits of an identification number will not be objectionable provided the digits are in sequence and cannot be misread.

3.2.2 Permanent marking for the general categories of items shall normally be between 0.060 and 0.160 inch (1.5 and 4 mm) in height. In special cases when governed by size or configuration, 0.016 inch (0.4 mm) minimum or 0.250 inch (6.35 mm) maximum height is permissible, or as otherwise specified in this standard or on the item drawing. When integral marking is used, the height should not exceed 0.500 inch (12.7 mm) nominal character size.

3.2.5 Permanent markings shall not be nearer than 0.031 inch (0.78 mm) to any corner, fillet, or edge unless specifically designated. Where a specific marking location, as designated and dimensioned, does not provide
enough area for 0.031 inch (0.78 mm) distance to any edge, corner, or fillet, the markings shall be centered upon the area without breaking over an edge or encroaching into corners or fillets. When parts are machined from previously marked hexagon bar stock, the 0.031 inch (0.78 mm) edge restriction is waived, provided the marking is legible.


Sounds like 0.242 to 0.304 inches to label the 3/8 and smaller fittings and about 0.395 inches to label the 1/2 and larger fittings. Hard to believe that there is that much space on the small fittings we use for all the info.


3.2.4 Permanent markings shall not be applied on surfaces which have been chemically processed, painted, or plated unless the marking will be legible and the minimum requirements of the surface treatment process is maintained or restored.

When you get to Table 1, it shows the different marking types (class) that are acceptable and min. max. DEEP they are allowed to be. It is 4 pages long.

Having read both specs, I find it hard to believe that these fittings cost less than $50 US.


This warning is on the bottom of page 1 of AS478 Rev M.


SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: ?This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.?
 
Wow, the info coming in on this thread.

Wow, the info coming in on this thread.

Lots of specs flying around.

New knowledge for most. This is good.

Inactive for new design, means just that. New design.

The D material is fully applicable for replacement of D parts, I know we still buy thousand of dollars of them each month. Brand spankin new! with certs.

The fitting manufacturers are making more fittings for old equipment than they are for new equipment.

You could actually design something using a D material and use it on new equipment, just not for a customer that requires the latest revisions of everything to be incorporated into their product.

The area where we are seeing a switch to the newer material is the Flareless MS fittings, they are starting to replace inventory with the W material, but there is still a lot of D stuff out there and legal to use as replacement for D material.

The new spec for the steel fitting will drive prices up, they are now calling out 4130 forgings, instead of the lower carbon steel in the past.
No code Change on this one. Just an AS stamp instead of AN or MS.

We still occasionally order new fasteners made to older specs, specifically for customers that want the original spec for the repair or maintenance of their products. Thats Ok, thats what the parts manual calls out.

Order what you want and will work best for your design, just check to make sure you get what you expected..... From every supplier, period.

BTW the AS specs from SAE cost over $50.00 ea. unless you are a subscriber and yes they are copyrighted. A good QA department cost more than most folks realize. The revisions are the same price and they change them in some cases several times a year.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top