Gauge of tubing???

[Michael Horowitz]

I"m familiar with the use of 'gauge' when describing sheetmetal.

I'm looking at 43.13 where it discusses welded patch repair. It says
make the patch out of material one gauge greater than that of the base
metal.

So I measure the base metal tubing (.035), go to the Inet and look up
a gauge chart and find that .035 lies between two gauge measurements.
And of course tubing suppliers talk in decimals, not gauge.

Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
you take? - Mike

[Jim Carriere]

Michael Horowitz wrote:
> I"m familiar with the use of 'gauge' when describing sheetmetal.
>
> I'm looking at 43.13 where it discusses welded patch repair. It says
> make the patch out of material one gauge greater than that of the base
> metal.
>
> So I measure the base metal tubing (.035), go to the Inet and look up
> a gauge chart and find that .035 lies between two gauge measurements.
> And of course tubing suppliers talk in decimals, not gauge.
>
> Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
> you take? - Mike

I can't answer your question for certain (I'm not qualified). But-

I want to point out sheet metal gauge depends on the material (steel,
aluminum, etc). In other words, there are different charts for
different kinds of sheet metal (which is entirely different from wire
gauge sizes). I figure you know this, not everyone does. The Aircraft
Spruce catalog has this material referenced at the front of the metal
section. AC43.13 doesn't seem to have this info.

Anyway, I know what I'd do- to be conservative I'd pick the larger
measurement and go up one size higher than that. Of course that would
add even more weight :)

[[email protected]]

Michael Horowitz wrote:
>
> Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
> you take? - Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You fall back on the 'accepted practices' rule.

'Gauge' as applied to SEAMLESS TUBING was usually defined as follows:

11ga = .125" wall thickness
13ga = .093"
16ga = .063"
18ga = .047"
20ga = .035"
22ga = .028"

As applied to your situation, you would select tubing having a wall
thickness of .047" for the repair.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The table offered above does NOT agree with various gauge-vs-thickness
charts in several particulars; some list 12ga as equal to .093 and
18ga is often shown as .050. Unfortunetely, many historic definitions
of seamless tubing pre-date the availability of SAE 4130 and cite
diameter & wall for MILD STEEL tubing that is no longer available, such
as half-inch x .0375" wall (ie, '20 ga' according to a seamless tubing
manufacturer of that era).

-R.S.Hoover

[Michael Horowitz]

On 4 Jun 2006 14:13:29 -0700, wrote:

>
>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>
>> Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
>> you take? - Mike
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You fall back on the 'accepted practices' rule.
>
>'Gauge' as applied to SEAMLESS TUBING was usually defined as follows:
>
>11ga = .125" wall thickness
>13ga = .093"
>16ga = .063"
>18ga = .047"
>20ga = .035"
>22ga = .028"
>
>As applied to your situation, you would select tubing having a wall
>thickness of .047" for the repair.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The table offered above does NOT agree with various gauge-vs-thickness
>charts in several particulars; some list 12ga as equal to .093 and
>18ga is often shown as .050. Unfortunetely, many historic definitions
>of seamless tubing pre-date the availability of SAE 4130 and cite
>diameter & wall for MILD STEEL tubing that is no longer available, such
>as half-inch x .0375" wall (ie, '20 ga' according to a seamless tubing
>manufacturer of that era).
>
>-R.S.Hoover

----------
Just what I needed - Thanks - Mike

[cavelamb]

Michael Horowitz wrote:

> On 4 Jun 2006 14:13:29 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>
>>>Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
>>>you take? - Mike
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>You fall back on the 'accepted practices' rule.
>>
>>'Gauge' as applied to SEAMLESS TUBING was usually defined as follows:
>>
>>11ga = .125" wall thickness
>>13ga = .093"
>>16ga = .063"
>>18ga = .047"
>>20ga = .035"
>>22ga = .028"
>>
>>As applied to your situation, you would select tubing having a wall
>>thickness of .047" for the repair.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>The table offered above does NOT agree with various gauge-vs-thickness
>>charts in several particulars; some list 12ga as equal to .093 and
>>18ga is often shown as .050. Unfortunetely, many historic definitions
>>of seamless tubing pre-date the availability of SAE 4130 and cite
>>diameter & wall for MILD STEEL tubing that is no longer available, such
>>as half-inch x .0375" wall (ie, '20 ga' according to a seamless tubing
>>manufacturer of that era).
>>
>>-R.S.Hoover
>
>
> ----------
> Just what I needed - Thanks - Mike
>


Just for the record, that's Thanks, VeeDubber...

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:52:50 GMT, cavelamb >
wrote:

>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>
>> On 4 Jun 2006 14:13:29 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>>Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
>>>>you take? - Mike
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>You fall back on the 'accepted practices' rule.
>>>
>>>'Gauge' as applied to SEAMLESS TUBING was usually defined as follows:
>>>
>>>11ga = .125" wall thickness
>>>13ga = .093"
>>>16ga = .063"
>>>18ga = .047"
>>>20ga = .035"
>>>22ga = .028"
>>>
>>>As applied to your situation, you would select tubing having a wall
>>>thickness of .047" for the repair.
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>The table offered above does NOT agree with various gauge-vs-thickness
>>>charts in several particulars; some list 12ga as equal to .093 and
>>>18ga is often shown as .050. Unfortunetely, many historic definitions
>>>of seamless tubing pre-date the availability of SAE 4130 and cite
>>>diameter & wall for MILD STEEL tubing that is no longer available, such
>>>as half-inch x .0375" wall (ie, '20 ga' according to a seamless tubing
>>>manufacturer of that era).
>>>
>>>-R.S.Hoover
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> Just what I needed - Thanks - Mike
>>
>
>
>Just for the record, that's Thanks, VeeDubber...

no it is thanks - mike
mike was the guy saying thanks.
perfectly plain to me. ....and no doubt veedubber and mike.
if you do a search and replace to put a <newline> in place of the
hyphen I'm sure the penny will drop for you as well.

Stealth Pilot :-)

[cavelamb]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:52:50 GMT, cavelamb >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 4 Jun 2006 14:13:29 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
>>>>>you take? - Mike
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>You fall back on the 'accepted practices' rule.
>>>>
>>>>'Gauge' as applied to SEAMLESS TUBING was usually defined as follows:
>>>>
>>>>11ga = .125" wall thickness
>>>>13ga = .093"
>>>>16ga = .063"
>>>>18ga = .047"
>>>>20ga = .035"
>>>>22ga = .028"
>>>>
>>>>As applied to your situation, you would select tubing having a wall
>>>>thickness of .047" for the repair.
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>The table offered above does NOT agree with various gauge-vs-thickness
>>>>charts in several particulars; some list 12ga as equal to .093 and
>>>>18ga is often shown as .050. Unfortunetely, many historic definitions
>>>>of seamless tubing pre-date the availability of SAE 4130 and cite
>>>>diameter & wall for MILD STEEL tubing that is no longer available, such
>>>>as half-inch x .0375" wall (ie, '20 ga' according to a seamless tubing
>>>>manufacturer of that era).
>>>>
>>>>-R.S.Hoover
>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>>Just what I needed - Thanks - Mike
>>>
>>
>>
>>Just for the record, that's Thanks, VeeDubber...
>
>
> no it is thanks - mike
> mike was the guy saying thanks.
> perfectly plain to me. ....and no doubt veedubber and mike.
> if you do a search and replace to put a <newline> in place of the
> hyphen I'm sure the penny will drop for you as well.
>
> Stealth Pilot :-)


Oh **** off.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Michael Horowitz wrote:
> >
> > Faced with this difference in units of measurement, what approach do
> > you take? - Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You fall back on the 'accepted practices' rule.
>
> 'Gauge' as applied to SEAMLESS TUBING was usually defined as follows:
>
> 11ga = .125" wall thickness
> 13ga = .093"
> 16ga = .063"
> 18ga = .047"
> 20ga = .035"
> 22ga = .028"
>
> As applied to your situation, you would select tubing having a wall
> thickness of .047" for the repair.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The table offered above does NOT agree with various gauge-vs-thickness
> charts in several particulars; some list 12ga as equal to .093 and
> 18ga is often shown as .050. Unfortunetely, many historic definitions
> of seamless tubing pre-date the availability of SAE 4130 and cite
> diameter & wall for MILD STEEL tubing that is no longer available, such
> as half-inch x .0375" wall (ie, '20 ga' according to a seamless tubing
> manufacturer of that era).
>
> -R.S.Hoover

There are a number of different gauge systems and they have
differing ideas as to thickness vs. gauge number. Six of them here:
http://www.constructionwork.com/resources_details_1390wire_and_sheet_metal_gauges. html?PHPSESSID=6de0c361b47e43efe217bc2a4aac71b0

Aluminum gauges: http://www.engineersedge.com/gauge.htm

Dan