X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2278898 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:03:23 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2007 16:02:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,295,1183348800"; d="scan'208"; a="129618356:sNHT47404922" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7MK2hOH005141 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:02:43 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l7MK2ZnP008224 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:02:43 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:02:35 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.199] ([64.102.38.199]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:02:34 -0400 Message-ID: <46CC965B.6010007@nc.rr.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:02:35 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Tap 'em holes was [FlyRotary] Throttle Body Nut Ideas References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2007 20:02:34.0932 (UTC) FILETIME=[61A09F40:01C7E4F7] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral Dale Rogers wrote: > This machinist says: "Why would you want to *do* that? Because I had no idea until now that such a tool existed? For the rest of the story: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osgthrane.dk%2Fshared%2Fguide-to-taps%2Ftech-nuroll.pdf&ei=8ZPMRvXuDaCUeNPg4M0L&usg=AFQjCNG25dNKzuyYJfY8HAqa0gjuHo1rIg&sig2=W3mhPq5blrAFQsdDpzHm5Q > > Strictly speaking, cut threads - what you get from conventional taps - > are weaker than swaged threads, such as the rolled threads one usually > finds on AN class fastener. > > So ... if one wants threads in alumin(i)um, one needs a tool that > displaces the metal, rather than cutting it. Eureka! Such a tool does > exist - the "fluteless thread forming tap" E.g.: > > http://www.shoprutlandtool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay;jsessionid=0000aUcDvp-FmIJrmRkZmUaWieP:-1?productId=27670&langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&parent_category_rn= > > > Rutland Tool # 21238428 > > Good hunting, > Dale R. > COZY MkIV #1254 > > > > Ernest Christley wrote: >> Ed Anderson wrote: >>> Scott, I think the best answer is to simply tap those bolt holes >>> for the thread size of your bolts. This does a number of things. >>> >> I've been told by a machinist that tapped holes in aluminum are >> weak. Any truth to that? >> >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > > -- > > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html