Aluminum instrument panel finish? [Archive]

Richard Riley

February 2nd 04, 05:52 AM

I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.

Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

Del Rawlins

February 2nd 04, 06:59 AM

In > Richard Riley wrote:
> I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
>
> Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

I think I would rather have a matte finish on mine, but ya gotta admit
that Pat Fagan's engine turned panel is a thing of beauty:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepPatFaganBH.html

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Ron Wanttaja

February 2nd 04, 07:17 AM

guynoir

February 2nd 04, 07:43 AM

Here's my experience with Anodizing. I liked it a lot.
http://www.eaa292.org/noon_patrol/dec_00/p1010006.jpg

Richard Riley wrote:

> I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
>
> Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

--
John Kimmel

I think it will be quiet around here now. So long.

Scott

February 2nd 04, 12:09 PM

Well, mine started out as just a plain piece of 0.125 aluminum and I used a
fly cutter to cut out the instrument holes and I went to Menards (Home
Depot-like place) and bought countertop laminate to put over it. Drilled
through a few instrument mounting screw holes and used machine screws and
nuts to keep it in place and used a laminate cutting bit in my dremel to
"rout" out the instrument holes. Worked really nice. Do not glue the
laminate to the aluminum, just use the instrument and panel mounting holes
to keep the laminate in place. I have an open cockpit plane, so laminate is
good incase it rains while I'm at a fly in.

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
>
> Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

Stealth Pilot

February 2nd 04, 12:38 PM

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:52:15 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
>no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
>with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
>
>Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
>turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

it all depends on whether you are building a hangar queen or an
aircraft to fly.

a matte surface in a medium dark green works pretty well.

if you go with polished or a gloss surface try not to fly in bright
sun or with the sun behind you. one will have you looking at high
quality reflections of your shirt and the other might just blind you.

btw crinkle finish black is a traditional crappy looking option :-)

Stealth Pilot
oz.

Nathan Young

February 2nd 04, 01:42 PM

Bill Chernoff

February 2nd 04, 03:30 PM

3 inches thick down to 0.120 ??!!!
How long did it take to machine?
Can you post a link to a photo?

thanks

Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.

jls

February 2nd 04, 05:37 PM

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
>
> Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

Alodine it and then put up a frilly little placard that says 24K. It would
be reminiscent of you.

Daniel

February 2nd 04, 06:00 PM

Richard Riley wrote ...
> I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
>
> Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

After that much effort, why finish it off with the same methods used
by every other aircraft on the line? You should go for something
unique. Something that really sets your plane apart. Something that
says "I just gotta be me!":

http://panel.notlong.com

Daniel

Orval Fairbairn

February 2nd 04, 06:22 PM

In article >,
" jls" > wrote:

> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> > no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> > with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
> >
> > Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> > turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?
>
> Alodine it and then put up a frilly little placard that says 24K. It would
> be reminiscent of you.
>
>

If you first polish it, then dip it in alodyne, it will look like a
piece of gold jewelry.

John T

February 2nd 04, 06:41 PM

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message

>
>> 3 inches thick down to 0.120 ??!!!
>> How long did it take to machine?
>> Can you post a link to a photo?
>
> I don't have a photo up anywhere, when I do I'll post a link here.
>
> It took a little over a day on a 5 axis Haas.

Let me ask the dumb question, then: Why start with a 3" thick piece of
aluminum if you intended to take it down to 0.12"? Seems to me to be a lot
of wasted metal... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

B2431

February 2nd 04, 07:14 PM

>From: guynoir
>Date: 2/2/2004 1:43 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>Here's my experience with Anodizing. I liked it a lot.
>http://www.eaa292.org/noon_patrol/dec_00/p1010006.jpg
>

That's a thing of beauty. Leaving the rivets uncoloured was a good touch. How
will you keep them from corroding?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

February 2nd 04, 07:17 PM

>From: "Bill Chernoff"
>Date: 2/2/2004 9:30 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <w2uTb.380284$X%5.120673@pd7tw2no>
>
>3 inches thick down to 0.120 ??!!!
>How long did it take to machine?
>Can you post a link to a photo?
>
>thanks
>
I think he's yanking our collective legs. Just think of the price of 3"
aluminum versus 1/2".

Dan, U.S. Air force, retired

Casey Wilson

February 2nd 04, 07:41 PM

> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> > no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> > with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
> >
> > Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> > turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?

Engine-turned then clear powder coat. Yeah, that's what I'd do.

VideoFlyer

February 2nd 04, 09:11 PM

>After that much effort, why finish it off with the same methods used
>by every other aircraft on the line? You should go for something
>unique. Something that really sets your plane apart. Something that
>says "I just gotta be me!":
>
>http://panel.notlong.com

LOLOL Too funny! I love it!

Marco Leon

February 2nd 04, 09:22 PM

As long as he doesn't plan on selling it anytime soon...

"Daniel" > wrote in message
om...
> Richard Riley wrote ...
> > I've just finished machining my instrument panel. It is (I say with
> > no small pride) nice. Milled out of 2024T3 3" thick, reduced to .120
> > with .120 webs between each instrument and around the perimeter.
> >
> > Now the question is: how should it be finished? Polished? Engine
> > turned? Anodized? Clear powder coat?
>
>
>
> After that much effort, why finish it off with the same methods used
> by every other aircraft on the line? You should go for something
> unique. Something that really sets your plane apart. Something that
> says "I just gotta be me!":
>
> http://panel.notlong.com
>
> Daniel

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Tarver Engineering

February 2nd 04, 09:40 PM

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> As long as he doesn't plan on selling it anytime soon...

Selling a homebuilt is not consistent with the regulatory advantages
provided to those building their own airplane, that they intend to operate.
That Authority belongs at a DAS.

Richard Riley

February 2nd 04, 09:59 PM

On 02 Feb 2004 19:17:35 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

:>
:I think he's yanking our collective legs. Just think of the price of 3"
:aluminum versus 1/2".
:
:Dan, U.S. Air force, retired

It wasn't that bad, the blank was 115 lbs, just over $300 with tax -
that's surplus, at $2.50/lb. Max Industries in Gardena, CA.

I wouldn't have done it except 1) it's a tandem airplane, so the
instrument panel is small and 2) I had access to a CNC machine for
free.

The down side is that it makes changing anything impossible.

Ron Natalie

February 2nd 04, 10:38 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > As long as he doesn't plan on selling it anytime soon...
>
> Selling a homebuilt is not consistent with the regulatory advantages
> provided to those building their own airplane, that they intend to operate.
> That Authority belongs at a DAS.

More drivel. The only thing that a builder is afforded over anyone else
who owns a homebuilt is eligibility to sign off the annuals.

Tarver Engineering

February 2nd 04, 10:43 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > As long as he doesn't plan on selling it anytime soon...
> >
> > Selling a homebuilt is not consistent with the regulatory advantages
> > provided to those building their own airplane, that they intend to
operate.
> > That Authority belongs at a DAS.
>
> More drivel. The only thing that a builder is afforded over anyone else
> who owns a homebuilt is eligibility to sign off the annuals.

Of course, that from Natalie, who doesn't even know a homebuilt is an
experimantal.

If you build it to sell, you are outside the regulatory intent of a
homebuilt.

John Galban

February 2nd 04, 10:48 PM

(Daniel) wrote in message >...
>
> After that much effort, why finish it off with the same methods used
> by every other aircraft on the line? You should go for something
> unique. Something that really sets your plane apart. Something that
> says "I just gotta be me!":
>
> http://panel.notlong.com

Just stay away from the one called "Classic Fruit". How'd you like
to repeat that everytime someone asks about the panel? :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Ron Natalie

February 2nd 04, 10:56 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
> > More drivel. The only thing that a builder is afforded over anyone else
> > who owns a homebuilt is eligibility to sign off the annuals.
>
> Of course, that from Natalie, who doesn't even know a homebuilt is an
> experimantal.
>
> If you build it to sell, you are outside the regulatory intent of a
> homebuilt.
>
I very much know it is certificated in "Experimental -- Amateur Built." The
only thing the rules say is that it must be CONSTRUCTED FOR EDUCATION
OR RECREATION. It doesn't say anything about what it is used for afterwards.
There is no restriction on selling homebuilts or maintaining and operating them after
they are sold.

Tarver Engineering

February 2nd 04, 11:03 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > > More drivel. The only thing that a builder is afforded over anyone
else
> > > who owns a homebuilt is eligibility to sign off the annuals.
> >
> > Of course, that from Natalie, who doesn't even know a homebuilt is an
> > experimantal.
> >
> > If you build it to sell, you are outside the regulatory intent of a
> > homebuilt.
> >
> I very much know it is certificated in "Experimental

You wrote that you didn't know that, not very long ago.

Are you now claiming that I am correct and you have no businees discussing
regulatory issues, Natalie?

> -- Amateur Built." The
> only thing the rules say is that it must be CONSTRUCTED FOR EDUCATION
> OR RECREATION. It doesn't say anything about what it is used for
afterwards.
> There is no restriction on selling homebuilts or maintaining and operating
them after
> they are sold.

There are several regulatory differences between homebuilts WRT
maintainance. As to building a homebuilt to sell, that alone invalidates
all that AEA has done. A DAS is required to build kit airplanes and sell
them.

Perhaps you would like to post up one of the archive trolls and remove any
doubt of your idiot status, Nesbitt?

nauga

February 3rd 04, 12:18 AM

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

> Selling a homebuilt is not consistent with the regulatory advantages
> provided to those building their own airplane, that they intend
> to operate.

Nothing in the CFR about "intent to operate." If a person
builds an airplane "for education or recreation" there
is nothing in the CFR that prevents them from selling it.

Hired guns or building for the express purpose of resale
are other matters altogether.

Dave 'twist and crawl' Hyde

Tarver Engineering

February 3rd 04, 12:50 AM

"nauga" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
>
> > Selling a homebuilt is not consistent with the regulatory advantages
> > provided to those building their own airplane, that they intend
> > to operate.
>
> Nothing in the CFR about "intent to operate." If a person
> builds an airplane "for education or recreation" there
> is nothing in the CFR that prevents them from selling it.

That is correct.

> Hired guns or building for the express purpose of resale
> are other matters altogether.

Yes.

StellaStar

February 3rd 04, 05:58 AM

> Something that really sets your plane apart. Something that
>> says "I just gotta be me!":
>>
>> http://panel.notlong.com

I just never get tired of touting Neal's plane. I'm his biggest fan!

http://www.alioth.net/flying/flying/trips/pville2k2/checkerbird.jpg

B2431

February 3rd 04, 09:17 AM

>From: (StellaStar)

>
>I just never get tired of touting Neal's plane. I'm his biggest fan!
>
>http://www.alioth.net/flying/flying/trips/pville2k2/checkerbird.jpg
>
>
If it ever becomes unflyable he can use it as an end of runway shack with that
paint scheme. :) I got a chuckle out of it.

Just a matter of curiosity how visible is it in flight?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

John Galban

February 3rd 04, 07:28 PM

(StellaStar) wrote in message >...
>
> I just never get tired of touting Neal's plane. I'm his biggest fan!
>
> http://www.alioth.net/flying/flying/trips/pville2k2/checkerbird.jpg

Me too. I've never felt more visible in the traffic pattern.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

John Galban

February 3rd 04, 10:42 PM

"nauga" > wrote in message et>...
>
> Nothing in the CFR about "intent to operate." If a person
> builds an airplane "for education or recreation" there
> is nothing in the CFR that prevents them from selling it.

Uh oh. My buddy sold his RV-6 and I'm currently helping him with
the RV-10 project. I don't think he's building it for "education or
recreation". I'm pretty sure he's building it so that he'll have a
kick-ass 4-place airplane to fly around in for less than 1/4 million
dollars.

I suppose the fallback position is that we're getting educated
whether we intend to or not :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Tarver Engineering

February 3rd 04, 10:44 PM

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "nauga" > wrote in message
et>...
> >
> > Nothing in the CFR about "intent to operate." If a person
> > builds an airplane "for education or recreation" there
> > is nothing in the CFR that prevents them from selling it.
>
> Uh oh. My buddy sold his RV-6 and I'm currently helping him with
> the RV-10 project. I don't think he's building it for "education or
> recreation". I'm pretty sure he's building it so that he'll have a
> kick-ass 4-place airplane to fly around in for less than 1/4 million
> dollars.
>
> I suppose the fallback position is that we're getting educated
> whether we intend to or not :-)

As long as he is not building the airplane to sell, he is within the intent
of the regulations.

Jeff P

February 4th 04, 02:09 AM

I would give it a horizontal brushed finish (or machine swirled) and
then have it etched and thick clear anodized. The etch time should be
about 3 minutes to give a somewhat matte finish. On 6061 I would say
to use a thin (.0005"-.0010") hard anodize which would give a nice
medium gray color. On 2024 the results of hard anodize are less
consistant so I recommend a thick standard anodize instead. At a
thickness of .0005"+ the color will coume out a light gray with some
goldish undertones. I think it looks good, but if you don't like it
you still have about the best paint base you could imagine.