Aluminum differences

[Lou Parker]

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 6061 T6 and 2024 T3
and 6063 T5 is?
Lou

[Mark Smith]

Lou Parker wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 6061 T6 and 2024 T3
> and 6063 T5 is?
> Lou


,,,,,,,,,,,then you need to ask about the differences in all the T6's
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351

[Allan Morrison]

http://www.alu-info.dk/Html/alulib/modul/Aindex.htm

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Lou Parker) wrote:

> Can anyone tell me what the difference
> is between 6061 T6 and 2024 T3 and
> 6063 T5 is?

All that stuff is in the Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog,
probably in the Wicks catalog, and certainly in Machinery's Handbook.
I think that everyone who messes around with airplanes should have a
copy of Machinery's.

In short:

The 4-digit number specifies an alloy. The 2000-series aluminums are
principally alloyed with copper, and the 6000-series with magnesium
and silicon.

The T-number specifies a recipe for heat treatment. T3 means solution
heat treated, T5 means artificially aged only, and T6 means solution
heat treated and then artifically aged.

Probably the most important difference between those materials is in
the strength properties. For example, the tensile strength properties
shown in Machinery's Handbook are:

yield psi ultimate psi
6063-T5 21,000 27,000
6061-T6 40,000 45,000
2024-T3 45,000 65,000
7075-T6 73,000 83,000

Note that there are many other differences between the alloys such as
notch sensitivity, susceptibility to corrosion, machinability,
weldability, and such like. Be careful.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Lou Parker) wrote in message >...
> Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 6061 T6 and 2024 T3
> and 6063 T5 is?
> Lou

About 20 ksi in tensile strength, 6061 being the lower. Don't have
any data on 6063 handy.

[Stephen Mitchell]

6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the three
alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the web.

Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an appropriate
size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some modifications
to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that you cannot by 6063 to
an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec etc so you might want to
allow an extra margin of safety to account for the commercial nature of the
material.


"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
om...
> Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 6061 T6 and 2024 T3
> and 6063 T5 is?
> Lou

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Stephen Mitchell" > wrote:

> 6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the three
> alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the web.
>
> Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an appropriate
> size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some modifications
> to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that you cannot by 6063 to
> an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec etc so you might want to
> allow an extra margin of safety to account for the commercial nature of the
> material.
>
>
> "Lou Parker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 6061 T6 and 2024 T3
> > and 6063 T5 is?
> > Lou
>
>

Bottom line: DON'T do it! Real, aircraft grade aluminum is not all that
expensive -- just check the Airparts catalog or their ad in Sport
Aviation. 2024-T3 is the standard aircraft structural aluminum, and
substituting a lesser grade only adds weight and can reduce safety in
structural applications.

[Philippe]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:



>> 6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the three
>> alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the web.
>>
>> Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an appropriate
>> size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some
>> modifications to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that you
>> cannot by 6063 to an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec etc
>> so you might want to allow an extra margin of safety to account for the
>> commercial nature of the material.


> Bottom line: DON'T do it! Real, aircraft grade aluminum is not all that
> expensive -- just check the Airparts catalog or their ad in Sport
> Aviation. 2024-T3 is the standard aircraft structural aluminum, and
> substituting a lesser grade only adds weight and can reduce safety in
> structural applications.

Are you sure that all aircraft parts are designed for ultimate stress
ability. Sometime, it's for stability in compression and the best ultimate
resistance is not needed.
For example, a 0.5mm skin on a MCR01 is oversized.
Another example: Zenith aircraft don't use 2024.


By
--
Philippe Vessaire ҿӬ

[Stephen Mitchell]

Yep you are right ... there are many cases where you don't want to use
2024-T3 just because it is the most common aircraft grade of alloy.

All alloys have the same modulus and hence commercial crap will perform just
as well as 2024-T3 or 7075-T6 etc in many applications where buckling is of
primary concern (NOT ALL THOUGH). Also there are many areas where stress is
not an issue but other issues such as formability, minimum bend radius,
availability, weldability and corrosion resistance are more important. I use
a lot of 6061-T6 to QQ-A-250/11 for these reasons in various applications.

However unless you know what you are doing just use what the designer
specified and don't try to cut corners to save a few bucks.



"Philippe" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>
> >> 6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the three
> >> alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the
web.
> >>
> >> Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an
appropriate
> >> size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some
> >> modifications to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that you
> >> cannot by 6063 to an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec
etc
> >> so you might want to allow an extra margin of safety to account for the
> >> commercial nature of the material.
>
>
> > Bottom line: DON'T do it! Real, aircraft grade aluminum is not all that
> > expensive -- just check the Airparts catalog or their ad in Sport
> > Aviation. 2024-T3 is the standard aircraft structural aluminum, and
> > substituting a lesser grade only adds weight and can reduce safety in
> > structural applications.
>
> Are you sure that all aircraft parts are designed for ultimate stress
> ability. Sometime, it's for stability in compression and the best ultimate
> resistance is not needed.
> For example, a 0.5mm skin on a MCR01 is oversized.
> Another example: Zenith aircraft don't use 2024.
>
>
> By
> --
> Philippe Vessaire ҿӬ
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Philippe > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>
> >> 6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the three
> >> alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the web.
> >>
> >> Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an appropriate
> >> size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some
> >> modifications to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that you
> >> cannot by 6063 to an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec etc
> >> so you might want to allow an extra margin of safety to account for the
> >> commercial nature of the material.
>
>
> > Bottom line: DON'T do it! Real, aircraft grade aluminum is not all that
> > expensive -- just check the Airparts catalog or their ad in Sport
> > Aviation. 2024-T3 is the standard aircraft structural aluminum, and
> > substituting a lesser grade only adds weight and can reduce safety in
> > structural applications.
>
> Are you sure that all aircraft parts are designed for ultimate stress
> ability. Sometime, it's for stability in compression and the best ultimate
> resistance is not needed.
> For example, a 0.5mm skin on a MCR01 is oversized.
> Another example: Zenith aircraft don't use 2024.
>
>
> By

You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
aluminum.

BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
should not be used as an example.

[Stephen Mitchell]

No I include structural parts in my discussion. There is no reason why
structural parts should not be made from the alloys under discussion. They
can be, have been and will be ... you just need two important ingredients:

1. Data on the strength and fatigue characteristics so you can do the
analysis and ensure that the sections are large enough.

2. A paper trail providing an acceptable level of quality assurance for the
material.

You can built an airplane out of any material you want if it satisfies these
two requirements - granted some materials are more efficient (better
"strength to weight" ratio than others).

I don't see the relevance to Zenair and blind (POP) fasteners.





"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
.
...
> In article >,
> Philippe > wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >> 6063 is commercial cheese ... would be the lower strength of the
three
> > >> alloys mentioned. Don't have data handly but you can find it on the
web.
> > >>
> > >> Nothing stopping you using it in an airplane if you select an
appropriate
> > >> size to account for its lower strength. I have used it in some
> > >> modifications to a restricted category aircraft. Just be aware that
you
> > >> cannot by 6063 to an accepted aeronautical spec such as QQ_A Fed Spec
etc
> > >> so you might want to allow an extra margin of safety to account for
the
> > >> commercial nature of the material.
> >
> >
> > > Bottom line: DON'T do it! Real, aircraft grade aluminum is not all
that
> > > expensive -- just check the Airparts catalog or their ad in Sport
> > > Aviation. 2024-T3 is the standard aircraft structural aluminum, and
> > > substituting a lesser grade only adds weight and can reduce safety in
> > > structural applications.
> >
> > Are you sure that all aircraft parts are designed for ultimate stress
> > ability. Sometime, it's for stability in compression and the best
ultimate
> > resistance is not needed.
> > For example, a 0.5mm skin on a MCR01 is oversized.
> > Another example: Zenith aircraft don't use 2024.
> >
> >
> > By
>
> You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
> parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
> aluminum.
>
> BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
> should not be used as an example.

[Richard Lamb]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
(snipped)
> You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
> parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
> aluminum.
>
> BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
> should not be used as an example.

6061-T6 is so structural aluminum.
You _can_ even get it "clad" if you got the bucks.

And the Zenith rivet technique is quite fascinating.

They start off with countersunk head steel cored rivets and use a
modified nose piece in the rivet gun to form a domed head when the
rivet is pulled. The head gets work hardended furing forming.

It's a very sound rivet approaching driven rivets in strength.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article
>, Orval
Fairbairn says...

>You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
>parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
>aluminum.
>
>BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
>should not be used as an example.

Thorp used pop rivets on the T-18 as well .Cherry Max's are pop rivets too and
are used all over the place. Zenith doesn't have parts coming apart because
of pop rivets. You just have to use the right ones and have them sized for the
loads.
See ya

Chuck S

[Stephen Mitchell]

There is nothing wrong with the Zenair approach ... it is used on the
CH-2000 and thus has been certificated by the FAA ... the method is however
a little unusual and can be a little confusing for some builders. I am not
quite sure why Heintz uses this method in lieu of a more standard
installation. Perhaps someone can enlighten us.

Whilst some blind rivets do have strengths that approach or in some cases
exceed the strength of standard MS20470/426AD solid rivets the main draw
backs are:

1. They can leak and thus need to be sealed.

2. They are more prone to working and loosening. The extent of this problem
is a function of the type of blind rivet. The Avdel rivets used by Zenair
are the cheapest and simplest type of blind rivet and will be more prone to
working and loosening than a Cherry Max or Cherry Lock. Pop rivets are
generally best used in lowly stressed areas for this reason (which is really
most of the structure in a light aircraft). Note that Zenair and many other
designers don't use blind rivets in the main spar prefering standard AD
rivets. Even the more expensive and sophisticated Cherry rivets will
work/loosen and most manufacturers or real airplanes will place restrictions
on where they may be used to replace AD rivets for repair work.





"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> (snipped)
> > You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
> > parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
> > aluminum.
> >
> > BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
> > should not be used as an example.
>
> 6061-T6 is so structural aluminum.
> You _can_ even get it "clad" if you got the bucks.
>
> And the Zenith rivet technique is quite fascinating.
>
> They start off with countersunk head steel cored rivets and use a
> modified nose piece in the rivet gun to form a domed head when the
> rivet is pulled. The head gets work hardended furing forming.
>
> It's a very sound rivet approaching driven rivets in strength.

[Stephen Mitchell]

Thorp used Monel pops .... a number of certificated aircraft also use Monel
pops.


"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
Orval
> Fairbairn says...
>
> >You should note that I specified STRUCTURAL aluminum. Yes, nonstructural
> >parts are made for other reasons and have a places for other grades of
> >aluminum.
> >
> >BTW, Zenith also uses pop rivets rather than driven rivets, so they
> >should not be used as an example.
>
> Thorp used pop rivets on the T-18 as well .Cherry Max's are pop rivets too
and
> are used all over the place. Zenith doesn't have parts coming apart
because
> of pop rivets. You just have to use the right ones and have them sized for
the
> loads.
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Stephen Mitchell
says...
>
>Thorp used Monel pops .... a number of certificated aircraft also use Monel
>pops.

Correct, proving the point that all rivets don't have to be the solid bucked
style as someone wrote. There's pop rivets and there's pop rivets just like
there's alum and there's alum. So just because some designers use pop rivets
does'nt mean their design is inferior to one that's using buck rivets.That's all
:-)

See ya

Chuck S

[Michael]

"Stephen Mitchell" > wrote
> There is nothing wrong with the Zenair approach ... it is used on the
> CH-2000 and thus has been certificated by the FAA ... the method is however
> a little unusual and can be a little confusing for some builders. I am not
> quite sure why Heintz uses this method in lieu of a more standard
> installation. Perhaps someone can enlighten us.

Actually, he makes no secret of it and discussed it at a seminar at
Oshkosh. With any luck, I remember this correctly, so here goes:

He opted for mechanical rivets because they can be set by one person,
and without the noise of a rivet gun. Basically, this is so married
builders can keep peace in the household. Given the domestic
situation of most pilots/builders, I can see his point.

Given that he was going for mechanical rivets, the next question is
which ones. He did not opt for Cherry/CherryMax solely because of
cost; they are a good rivet and has structural properties such that
significantly fewer rivets could be used. However, the overall cost
would have been higher. He decided not to go with the commercial
(POP) rivet because the round head did not lead to a consistent
installation, so while the individual rivets are substantially
cheaper, he would have had to design in a lot more of them. He opted
for Avex rivets because the mushroom-shaped head yielded a reasonably
consistent installation and the cost was reasonable.

In fact, Avex rivets were originally designed for aircraft use and are
used in some certified aircraft. However, the approval process took
too long, and meanwhile they found a market in consumer goods. In the
end, that turned out to be the lucrative market, and aviation was
abandoned. Hooray for certification...

Michael