I am in need of nas6603-4X thru -23X bolts for the aircraft doors my shop works on. The "X" in the part number refers to the bolt being oversized. The drawings call out for these oversized bolts, but thus far I have not been able to locate them anywhere. Does anyone have any experience with and or advice on how I might be able to locate and procure these oversized bolts? Thanks in advance
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Trouble finding nas6603-x (oversized bolts)
- Thread starter TDeMoe
- Start date
Compositepro
Chemical
Aerodsgnr, you are correct about site policy. The purpose is to keep non-engineers from annoying us with questions that any engineer would know through their basic education. This thread is definitely not a problem in that respect. Personally, I welcome TDeMoe here and suggest that this instance falls under "Don't ask don't tell".
WKTaylor could you point me to the location on this site that says is restricted to degreed practicing engineers only? I found the posting policy and it does not say that. I will not be commenting on this anymore as I dont intend to start an argument and I have enjoyed you many informative posts in the past.
Eng-Tips Posting Policies
Students
Student posting in Eng-Tips forums for help with theses or coursework is forbidden. This is considered cheating. Offending posts will be removed from the site and offending members will lose their membership privileges.
Posting
Commercial and/or recruiting "spam" will not be tolerated in the forums. Our forums are member-policed via the forums' "Red-Flag" utility. Offending posters will be dealt with sternly not only by the management of this site, but also face possible retaliation by the members of this web community (we exert no control over our members and in no way encourage this kind of activity).
The following activities can result in deletion of posts, deletion of threads and/or restriction of further site usage. Members who engage in any of the following activities may be red flagged by the membership. Management of this site does not read any post unless it has been red flagged by a member. In no particular order, here are some common offenses:
Selling
Recruiting
Student Posting
Profanity
Cross Posting
Tack-On Posting. If you have a new question, start a new thread.
Arguing in an Unprofessional Manner
Posting of Personal Information
Posting Anything Illegal (including hacking, cracking, passwords, etc.)
Defamatory Posting
Shill Posting, or posting made at the behest of a company
Leeching (members posting only questions, and never helping others)
Irritating Other Members
On the other hand, members are expected to:
Search Google, Previous Posts, and FAQs Prior to Posting.
Write Intelligent Questions And Use Descriptive Subject Lines
Thank Other Members For Help Received & Click the "Thank (member) For This Valuable Post!" Link
Help Other Members
Red Flag Offensive Posts
Be Professional
Eng-Tips Posting Policies
Students
Student posting in Eng-Tips forums for help with theses or coursework is forbidden. This is considered cheating. Offending posts will be removed from the site and offending members will lose their membership privileges.
Posting
Commercial and/or recruiting "spam" will not be tolerated in the forums. Our forums are member-policed via the forums' "Red-Flag" utility. Offending posters will be dealt with sternly not only by the management of this site, but also face possible retaliation by the members of this web community (we exert no control over our members and in no way encourage this kind of activity).
The following activities can result in deletion of posts, deletion of threads and/or restriction of further site usage. Members who engage in any of the following activities may be red flagged by the membership. Management of this site does not read any post unless it has been red flagged by a member. In no particular order, here are some common offenses:
Selling
Recruiting
Student Posting
Profanity
Cross Posting
Tack-On Posting. If you have a new question, start a new thread.
Arguing in an Unprofessional Manner
Posting of Personal Information
Posting Anything Illegal (including hacking, cracking, passwords, etc.)
Defamatory Posting
Shill Posting, or posting made at the behest of a company
Leeching (members posting only questions, and never helping others)
Irritating Other Members
On the other hand, members are expected to:
Search Google, Previous Posts, and FAQs Prior to Posting.
Write Intelligent Questions And Use Descriptive Subject Lines
Thank Other Members For Help Received & Click the "Thank (member) For This Valuable Post!" Link
Help Other Members
Red Flag Offensive Posts
Be Professional
aerodsgnr... TOTALLY SERIOUS.
I'm going to give You a 'WKTaylor long-answer', [and sorry, rb1957, Dave*]... bare with me...
Feel free to 'click' on my name for a look at my background [professional/Eng-Tips]... then think for a moment: "what can this 'WKTaylor-guy' contribute to someone who is essentially non-technical in a few brief sentences, paragraphs and photos, etc on this site?" Further, “what can a non-technically trained individual [lacking basic analytical-technical/mechanical background] learn on this site by reading the few brief sentences and paragraphs in each thread/post? The answer to both questions is, regrettably, “NOT MUCH” without a whole lot-more info exchange!
When I fully realized that TDeMoe is an overhaul mechanic who 'can't get answers from his local engineers', and his questions/comments indicated a lack of basic familiarity with the subject at hand [fastening, trust me on this], I had to ask he be disqualified. This is NOT what Eng-Tips is intended for.
I've discovered that when people are way-far-apart in background, thoughts, experience and approach, then even simple discussions without a common 'basis/background/language'... can fall apart and be very frustrating. A technical background is an essential attribute of questioning and answering [contributing!!]... both-ways... here.
NOTE. At work I have the luxury of long discussions with other enginurds, ‘newbies-to-gray-hairs’. We openly discuss every topic under the sun; including how disciplines come together in interactive/complex ways. Tools we use are: examination of physical hardware samples, engineering drawings, documents, tech data, photos/images, sketches, ‘war-stories’, hand waving, specialized training sessions, personal tools, etc-etc-etc. Without these ‘elements of interaction’ we in Eng-Tips forums are limited to written words, photos, sketches, or references pointing-to related tech information, etc. Most of us simply do not have the time for anything else: ‘more’ can be exhausting/impractical/non-work related time.
NOTE. In one recent thread I contributed to, I made a suggestion regarding where to insert a casting straightening operation within a HT process; I’m not sure they ‘got it’… or if other factors were in-play that I was unaware of… soooo after some added brief comments, and pointing back to my short/compact original statement, I had to ‘move-on’.
*OK, OK, OK…
The short paragraph I wrote to TDeMoe that you cited [3-sentences, above], probably should NOT have been ‘published in-the-open’: It was one of those “did I just say that out-loud?” moments.
AS You carefully pointed-out-to-me [in-detail], NOWHERE is it explicitly stated that Eng-Tips is for ’degreed engineers’.
Dave on the Eng-Tips staff [also] ‘rightly reminded me’ that there are many E-T members who DO have a wide/deep variety of engineering and related technical skills and experience without even a BA or BS degree and deserved/earned E-T membership… which I concede to humbly [shamed-faced]. I KNOW and respect many of these 'super folks' and am eager to continue discussions with them.
NOTE. I try ultra-hard to discuss, educate and learn in a truthful, honorable and respectful manner within these venues... "...Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed engineering information on the Internet!". This site is 'fun' and 'satisfying' to me professionally/personally in many ways... and I respect every 'practicing engineer' I've ever met here.
Probably should stop talking [##], now, and get back to work ‘for the man’.
##When you discover you’re riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.” --Wisdom of the Dakota Indians
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
I'm going to give You a 'WKTaylor long-answer', [and sorry, rb1957, Dave*]... bare with me...
Feel free to 'click' on my name for a look at my background [professional/Eng-Tips]... then think for a moment: "what can this 'WKTaylor-guy' contribute to someone who is essentially non-technical in a few brief sentences, paragraphs and photos, etc on this site?" Further, “what can a non-technically trained individual [lacking basic analytical-technical/mechanical background] learn on this site by reading the few brief sentences and paragraphs in each thread/post? The answer to both questions is, regrettably, “NOT MUCH” without a whole lot-more info exchange!
When I fully realized that TDeMoe is an overhaul mechanic who 'can't get answers from his local engineers', and his questions/comments indicated a lack of basic familiarity with the subject at hand [fastening, trust me on this], I had to ask he be disqualified. This is NOT what Eng-Tips is intended for.
I've discovered that when people are way-far-apart in background, thoughts, experience and approach, then even simple discussions without a common 'basis/background/language'... can fall apart and be very frustrating. A technical background is an essential attribute of questioning and answering [contributing!!]... both-ways... here.
NOTE. At work I have the luxury of long discussions with other enginurds, ‘newbies-to-gray-hairs’. We openly discuss every topic under the sun; including how disciplines come together in interactive/complex ways. Tools we use are: examination of physical hardware samples, engineering drawings, documents, tech data, photos/images, sketches, ‘war-stories’, hand waving, specialized training sessions, personal tools, etc-etc-etc. Without these ‘elements of interaction’ we in Eng-Tips forums are limited to written words, photos, sketches, or references pointing-to related tech information, etc. Most of us simply do not have the time for anything else: ‘more’ can be exhausting/impractical/non-work related time.
NOTE. In one recent thread I contributed to, I made a suggestion regarding where to insert a casting straightening operation within a HT process; I’m not sure they ‘got it’… or if other factors were in-play that I was unaware of… soooo after some added brief comments, and pointing back to my short/compact original statement, I had to ‘move-on’.
*OK, OK, OK…
The short paragraph I wrote to TDeMoe that you cited [3-sentences, above], probably should NOT have been ‘published in-the-open’: It was one of those “did I just say that out-loud?” moments.
AS You carefully pointed-out-to-me [in-detail], NOWHERE is it explicitly stated that Eng-Tips is for ’degreed engineers’.
Dave on the Eng-Tips staff [also] ‘rightly reminded me’ that there are many E-T members who DO have a wide/deep variety of engineering and related technical skills and experience without even a BA or BS degree and deserved/earned E-T membership… which I concede to humbly [shamed-faced]. I KNOW and respect many of these 'super folks' and am eager to continue discussions with them.
NOTE. I try ultra-hard to discuss, educate and learn in a truthful, honorable and respectful manner within these venues... "...Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed engineering information on the Internet!". This site is 'fun' and 'satisfying' to me professionally/personally in many ways... and I respect every 'practicing engineer' I've ever met here.
Probably should stop talking [##], now, and get back to work ‘for the man’.
##When you discover you’re riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.” --Wisdom of the Dakota Indians
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
rb1957, note...
RE Your post [2 Feb 17 19:27]... "... by using oversize fasteners they may squeeze a slightly higher allowable. ..."
A final war-story...
A few years ago we needed to replace loose high strength shear-head swaged-collar lock-bolts with 1OS shear-head blind bolts [repair]. For many reasons this substitution turned-out to be a nightmare. Primarily, the installed shear strength of the lock-bolts was 'X' and the available equivalent [1OS diameter] for shear-head blind-bolts (JO bolts [JB]) were rated in the [JB] spec-tables at ~0.93X.
I went to the Monogram Aerospace Fastener website and went looking for suitable higher strength 1OS blind-bolts [Jo-Bolts], various alloys. Oddly, ALL of the 1OS JB specs clearly cited the exact-same shear strength as-for the nominal diameter JB'[1:1]. Huhhh!?!?
Sooo, I called Monogram fastener engineering to ask the question "are the 1OS'ed JBs really the same strength as the Nominal JBs [gave him explicit PNs]???". I reminded him that... for instance... equivalent-design nominal and 1OS diameter blind rivets have unique shear-allowables tables; and that the 1OS rivets [Ref Cherry data] are always slightly higher than for ‘nominal Dias’. After a short delay he confirmed that the 1OS JBs actually 'tested' at ~1.01X... but that the shear allowable tables for the 1OS JBs were populated with the nominal diameter JB values 'without any reasonable explanation' [cut-and-paste?].
Success! The Monogram fastener engineer had the 'specification' tables revised for most OS JB's within a few weeks... and I had my 'suitable substitute'!
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
RE Your post [2 Feb 17 19:27]... "... by using oversize fasteners they may squeeze a slightly higher allowable. ..."
A final war-story...
A few years ago we needed to replace loose high strength shear-head swaged-collar lock-bolts with 1OS shear-head blind bolts [repair]. For many reasons this substitution turned-out to be a nightmare. Primarily, the installed shear strength of the lock-bolts was 'X' and the available equivalent [1OS diameter] for shear-head blind-bolts (JO bolts [JB]) were rated in the [JB] spec-tables at ~0.93X.
I went to the Monogram Aerospace Fastener website and went looking for suitable higher strength 1OS blind-bolts [Jo-Bolts], various alloys. Oddly, ALL of the 1OS JB specs clearly cited the exact-same shear strength as-for the nominal diameter JB'[1:1]. Huhhh!?!?
Sooo, I called Monogram fastener engineering to ask the question "are the 1OS'ed JBs really the same strength as the Nominal JBs [gave him explicit PNs]???". I reminded him that... for instance... equivalent-design nominal and 1OS diameter blind rivets have unique shear-allowables tables; and that the 1OS rivets [Ref Cherry data] are always slightly higher than for ‘nominal Dias’. After a short delay he confirmed that the 1OS JBs actually 'tested' at ~1.01X... but that the shear allowable tables for the 1OS JBs were populated with the nominal diameter JB values 'without any reasonable explanation' [cut-and-paste?].
Success! The Monogram fastener engineer had the 'specification' tables revised for most OS JB's within a few weeks... and I had my 'suitable substitute'!
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
Guys, I agree with Compositepro. A query should be judged on its merits. A non-degreed person can come up with a serious (and interesting)query, the replies to which will be of benefit to all; the present query is a case in point - I learnt a lot from the replies. Just think: If Ed Heinemann were alive and he posted a query would he have been barred for not being a degreed engineer? I can come up with numerous similar examples.
Regards,
Andries
Regards,
Andries
Andries... DANG...
You pulled the 'Ed Heinemann aeronautical-wizard' card on me...
I am a devotee/student of both the: A-4 Skyhawk, developed under his direct-leadership at Douglass; and the F-16 Falcon developed under his co-leadership at General Dynamics.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
You pulled the 'Ed Heinemann aeronautical-wizard' card on me...
I am a devotee/student of both the: A-4 Skyhawk, developed under his direct-leadership at Douglass; and the F-16 Falcon developed under his co-leadership at General Dynamics.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
andries...
I am familiar with following...
Ed Heinemann, Combat Aircraft Designer
Aircraft Design by Ed Heinemann
...any others?
DANG.
My dad had a personally autographed photo [to him] from Ed Heinemann. Apparently Ed H knew John Thorp who designed my dad's homebuilt Thorp T18.
Have no idea where photo is after dad passed-away thing were sent in various directions.
What seems odd to me is that Douglas [now Boeing] failed to acknowledge EH's move to GD and the F-16 program... as if he somehow dropped off the face of the earth. SAD.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
I am familiar with following...
Ed Heinemann, Combat Aircraft Designer
Aircraft Design by Ed Heinemann
...any others?
DANG.
My dad had a personally autographed photo [to him] from Ed Heinemann. Apparently Ed H knew John Thorp who designed my dad's homebuilt Thorp T18.
Have no idea where photo is after dad passed-away thing were sent in various directions.
What seems odd to me is that Douglas [now Boeing] failed to acknowledge EH's move to GD and the F-16 program... as if he somehow dropped off the face of the earth. SAD.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
It would help to look into the configuration history of this component. There might be an ECN concerning rework of non-conforming parts by drilling the holes oversize and installing -1OS fasteners. If all of a supply of this component required this modification, then it would make sense to revise the design so that all of the components delivered were similar.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question