Re: welding unknow alum what filler

admin

So as to not hijack the above titled discussion (welding unknow alum what filler) I simply started a new thread ------Seems that the phrase "aircraft" raised some warning flags / discussion / comments when the topic was about welding.Personally - IMHO - I feel there should be just as much "scrutiny" in automotive / trailer welding as in "aircraft welding". Why? Because my chances of being struck by a crashing aircraft are quite small compared to meeting a trailer axle (from another thread) that had a weld failure.So, daily, we meet potential pieces of flying debris, disintegrating cars / trailers and 18 wheelers whose cargo originates in Mexico. Where is your concern?Lincoln SA200's... at least 15 - 20. They come and go. Growing partial to the "Short Hoods" in my old age. Last count on Short Hoods was 13 in possession.
Reply:But I would think that a structural failure in an aircraft is much more likely to result in a fatality than a comparable failure in an on-road vehicle.
Reply:My concern is in both arenas. However, people seem to keep talking out their a$$ on aviation and act like it's no big deal or they it's no different than a car. every single part of an aircraft is optimized to handle the stresses induced and be as light as possible. By modifying any part of it, you have now just turned that pilot into a test pilot, whether he is aware of the sub par "fix" or not. If you don't know about aviation, don't reference it in a post. Yes, it is a bit harsh, but I don't want to buy an aircraft where a PO has had a part welded because some turd on WW said it could be done.
Reply:Originally Posted by rlitmanBut I would think that a structural failure in an aircraft is much more likely to result in a fatality than a comparable failure in an on-road vehicle.
Reply:Originally Posted by hobohilton-----------------------I wouldn't want to bet my life on those odds.Thanks,Hobo
Reply:Originally Posted by BCTimberwolfMy concern is in both arenas. However, people seem to keep talking out their a$$ on aviation and act like it's no big deal or they it's no different than a car. every single part of an aircraft is optimized to handle the stresses induced and be as light as possible. By modifying any part of it, you have now just turned that pilot into a test pilot, whether he is aware of the sub par "fix" or not. If you don't know about aviation, don't reference it in a post. Yes, it is a bit harsh, but I don't want to buy an aircraft where a PO has had a part welded because some turd on WW said it could be done.
Reply:OK so this unkown type of alum which is part for my cup holder has a crack in it. What would be the best type of filler to weld it with. if no other ideas are given im just welding it with ER5356.
Reply:A cup holder?  I'd use JB ;-)
Reply:Originally Posted by OkieDaveA cup holder?  I'd use JB ;-)
Reply:A cupholder???? Seriously??? And by signing off am I to assume you are the A&P or IA??
Reply:so if this really was a cupholder, why the hell would you have said an "aircraft part?" Just trying to make it sound cool? That's like Kelly Johnson telling a guy, "Yeah it's some kind of stainless for an SR-71, just use some random er70s-2 or whatever you've got down there." It's going to raise a few flags.
Reply:Originally Posted by makoman1860A cupholder???? Seriously??? And by signing off am I to assume you are the A&P or IA??
Reply:Sounds like a load of BS to me. I fly one of the most highly classified aircraft we have for AFSOC and something such as a "cupholder" would be a non-issue. It would be replaced with the correct part and not given a second thought, whether it be a contractor or one of our own.
Reply:Originally Posted by BCTimberwolfSounds like a load of BS to me. I fly one of the most highly classified aircraft we have for AFSOC and something such as a "cupholder" would be a non-issue. It would be replaced with the correct part and not given a second thought, whether it be a contractor or one of our own.
Reply:Sorry man...not even close. I'm stationed at Hurlburt in the 34th SOS. I've already done my time in T-6's and T-1's. Not a single enlisted guy anywhere near the mx of our aircraft. Probably exactly for the reasons you list. I will continue to "fly my AC and walk around with rank that looks all pretty and shiny" knowing that my guys know what the hell is going on with the aircraft, and parts on it, and not asking on some damn online forum how to weld a part. Good luck with that.
Reply:BC, I have to ask, and it's not to be pedantic: do you mean T-6's, or T-6As?  Because the second one would be neat, but an old round-engine Texan (or Harvard, for the Canadians) would be damned cool.
Reply:Beechcraft T-6A Texan II's. I had buddies training with the Navy at NAS Whiting field that were flying the T-6B's but we weren't lucky enough to have those.