Taylorcraft wire

[Mark Bowden]

Any new alloy that will eventually get used will be different from "what ever was used" on any given day by Taylorcraft. Music wire then isn't the music wire of today. Nor are any of the wartime ferrous and non-ferrous alloys. 302 was the closest to the Aeronca Music wire standard, 304 is also close too. It's a compromise.

We can never use what was used because it no longer exists. In the end it is just a clip that needs to be a bit stronger, more "springy" (for insertion and shape retention) and more corrosion resistant than the Aluminum rib.

If you want to use 304, use plain 304 as there is no need for the other alloy variants in this application. Modern music wire can be (you don't know generally) Carbon steel 1085, 302, 304, etc... or supplied under ASTM A228/A228M-18. However the ASTM grade is more prone to corrosion. It is cold drawn after the wire is made to it's final diameter.

Specifying 302 or 304 will result in less variability in what you get compared to "music wire" and it's non-aerospace fabrication methods.

[Jim Herpst]

If they don't mind doing a test with a couple of pieces a foot or so long it would make sure they don't produce something we won't want.

Sounds reasonable...until it is not anyway

[Hank Jarrett]

If they don't mind doing a test with a couple of pieces a foot or so long it would make sure they don't produce something we won't want.

[Jim Herpst]

We may want to do this the 1940s way. Make a piece from each type SS and see which one works best. Sometimes the simple method is the one that works best.

Hank,

Do you suggest the wire bending company use two different callouts on the stainless (or more ?) for a sample ?

Thoughts?

[Hank Jarrett]

We may want to do this the 1940s way. Make a piece from each type SS and see which one works best. Sometimes the simple method is the one that works best.

[Jim Herpst]

I attach the 7 readings from the analysis done by my friend. His conclusion is the match for 304 stainless is very good. However, due to XRF not being able to detect carbon, it only reports 304. It could be 304, 304L or 304H. See attached pdf.

His comments:

304 Stainless Steel
Stainless steel 304 is an austenitic grade that can be severely deep drawn. This property has resulted in 304 being the dominant grade used in applications like sinks and saucepans.

304L Stainless Steel
Type 304L is the low carbon version of Stainless steel 304. It is used in heavy gauge components for improved weldability. Some products such as plate and pipe may be available as “dual certified” material that meets the criteria for both 304 and 304L.

304H Stainless Steel
304H, a high carbon content variant, is also available for use at high temperatures.

See attached pdf

Rob

Well 304 stainless now raises another issue. I have a drawing supplied to me that was done by an engineer which is calling out 302 stainless. I was just about to send in the drawing I have. It was supplied to me by another member. hmmm

[Robert Lees]

I attach the 7 readings from the analysis done by my friend. His conclusion is the match for 304 stainless is very good. However, due to XRF not being able to detect carbon, it only reports 304. It could be 304, 304L or 304H. See attached pdf.

His comments:

304 Stainless Steel
Stainless steel 304 is an austenitic grade that can be severely deep drawn. This property has resulted in 304 being the dominant grade used in applications like sinks and saucepans.

304L Stainless Steel
Type 304L is the low carbon version of Stainless steel 304. It is used in heavy gauge components for improved weldability. Some products such as plate and pipe may be available as “dual certified” material that meets the criteria for both 304 and 304L.

304H Stainless Steel
304H, a high carbon content variant, is also available for use at high temperatures.

See attached pdf

Rob

[Jim Herpst]

Well Rob. Grrrrrreat contribution ! This has sure been super with the group contributions !!

Fingers crossed the spring company can make it as now completely layed out!!

[Robert Lees]

As promised, I watched the XRF analysis of the samples I have of original 1940s Taylorcraft wire. It seems closest to Stainless 303, rather than 304 (and certainly not 302H like the Martin wire), although there was a suggestion of Potassium in the mix that might have caused the chemical confusion (and this could be due to skin contamination of the small diameter wire samples).

I'll post the full chemical/elemental results when they are forwarded to me. The hand-held XRF analyser used costs more than £35,000 + X-ray training to purchase; it'll analyse anything inert (food, metal, paper, etc) and tell you its composition.

My friend is their chief Sales Manager, and he owed me a favour!

[Jim Herpst]

Ok have the files from Mark, Have the sample in. a tube ready to mail (I do need to check that sample against what is currently in my wings as I am now noting it is not lying completely flat between the holes....) Dad and his partner were doing this back in 1966 and the information we now exchange was just not there even though the plane ws being restored in Mars PA... NW Pittsburgh PA not terrably far from Alliance . They my have used Martin wire! The samples I have from Hank that will be mailed are definitely correct and will give a definitive answer on that. Long story short if we get this worked out I may be the first customer from our roll!!

[Mark Bowden]

Hi Jim,
Sent you a bunch of files, 2D, solid model, and autocad flle. plus some other file info that might help the cause. If you can do a full scale print on a plotter it would be good to lay your piece over the drawing to see how it compares to the piece we did the drawings from.

Mark

[Jim Herpst]

Mark,

Thank you for the material call out! I figured it was a stainless material.

Please e mail the taylorcraft drawing to my personal e mail [email protected]. I really do not want to the Aeronca drawings. Think I have them already any way

[Mark Bowden]

Jim, I have a Taylorcraft drawing as mentioned before and the Aeronca drawing. I'll share with you as mentioned before. PM me with your email. I also have an Autocad file of the Tcraft wire shape in addition to the 2D drawing.

The Aeronca dwg is a copy of the Tcraft idea and this drawing appears to be a legit copy of the released engineering drawing. I had the Tcraft drawing made from a piece of Taylorcraft wire.

The Aeronca material call out is: 0.031 Dia, Spring Music Wire, Specification AN-W-15.

The Martin material call out is Stainless Steel 302H.

Mark

[Jim Herpst]

I have a friend coming to see me this weekend; he has a range of Niton portable X-ray analysers and is confident of being able to determine the chemical composition of the wire. I'll be using original Taylorcraft wire as the sample, not Martin wire.

Example link: https://www.nitonuk.co.uk/xl5/

It's obviously some form of spring steel, corrosion resistant, and hopefully we can get the exact specification.

Rob

That is an important issue . Would not want some crap to be used that rusts!!

Thank you Rob. It looks like things are finally coming together in a safe logical manner for the awning wire.

[Robert Lees]

I have a friend coming to see me this weekend; he has a range of Niton portable X-ray analysers and is confident of being able to determine the chemical composition of the wire. I'll be using original Taylorcraft wire as the sample, not Martin wire.

Example link: https://www.nitonuk.co.uk/xl5/

It's obviously some form of spring steel, corrosion resistant, and hopefully we can get the exact specification.

Rob