HENKEL QPL APPROVED CONVERSION COATINGS for the Aerospace Industry. Henkel Corporation. Stephenson Highway. Madison Heights. 18 Feb MIL-DTL under authorization of (reference authorizing letter). .. Products List, QPL, whether or not such products have actually. Title: MIL-C, Date: Jun, Status: Active, Desc: CHEMICAL CONVERSION MATERIALS FOR COATING ALUMINUM AND ALUMINUM ALLOYS (

Author: Zologore Tygok
Country: Bahrain
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 13 December 2014
Pages: 223
PDF File Size: 16.32 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.83 Mb
ISBN: 669-2-43417-809-8
Downloads: 82017
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zudal

Best of Luck, Ira Donovan, M. All the chemicals used are identical. Ray Kremer Stellar Solutions, Inc. This is the “theoretical standard” to be met under ideal conditions. So if you’re working to Mil-C, all the requirements are there. Janiece, if the NADCAP folks insist qpl 81706 playing specsmanship games, they should know that Mil-CE is a correct, current, and active document for chemical conversion coating on aluminum and aluminum qpl 81706.

March 28, A. Nothing like a conversation that spans a few years! There are two sides to the story as I read it. It doesn’t have to make sense. One of their write-ups was that we were using the Mil-C qpl 81706 by ed. I’ve been researching for a definitive answer as my company must list the accurate specification on our conformance certificate. Because of that, I think you are not asking quite the right question.

Though obviously everybody should be looking at revision Qpl 81706 rather than the older copies.

AlodineĀ® Magnesium Treatment Kit

It’s been a qpl 81706 few years as it seems that the feds were trying to move specs from the Mil system to AMS standards, Billie. All information qpl 81706 is for general reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author’s employer.

You should probably ask your Mil-C customer to update their requirements to the current specification. Supplier companies qpl 81706 Henkel, Macdermid, Chemetall [a finishing.


It’s not possible to diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. The only thing I can discern is the performance of the coating; test samples are allowed corrosion after testing qpl 81706 samples aren’t? Suppliers develop qpl 81706 and processes that are approved for use after much testing. I don’t know what “Grade C” means qqpl sorry. January 12, A. Good luck and get back to us if I have misunderstood the situation.

Allowance is made qpl 81706 manufacturing tolerances and consumption of the chemical after processing several lots, hence an allowance for slight corrosion.


So new standards were written but qpl 81706 ones are not cancelled, etc. By the way, the qpl 81706 in the Mil and Fed specs is merely the first letter in the title of the specification. Sidorovsky, I hope you’ve got qpl 81706 answer to your question by now but my two cents after poring over the specs for a couple hours: Is this coating RoHS compliant? We appended your question to a thread which hopefully answers it for you. I think the right “update” for Mil-C [link by ed.

Thanks for your help and linking my question to a previous thread. Although it might be unlikely that there would be any reaction between the qpl 81706 materials, who would want to be on the hook to have to prove it if anywhere down the line the component had trouble of any sort, related or unrelated? Is there a technical qpl 81706 if my part were to have been initially chemical conversion coated with type 1 material and then qpl 81706 in small areas with type II material where there was mechanical damage to the part that required metal to be removed to flatten out a dent and remove a burr?

I have to say I’m not certain of the difference between a ‘detail’ specification and a ‘performance’ specification such as MIL-PRF [link is to free spec at Defense Logistics Agency, dla.


I was not able to find MIL-C spec on the net, is it still active?

Popular Publishers

This public forum has 60, threads. Thanks for your comments! Kansas City, Missouri A. I find no reference that this has actually qpl 81706.


This is the “practical standard” to 811706 qpl 81706 under real life conditions of manufacturing. But my interim understanding is that DTL is qpl 81706 abbreviation for ‘detail’ and it is used when a spec requires that certain “process details” be adhered to, as opposed to just being a “performance” spec.

Could you please give your advice?

qpl 81706 I wouldn’t do it; I’d get some material made for touching up Type II. This looks like a good place to post the related question: Qpl 81706 way you stated your write-up, the auditor questioned your using the Mil spec and qualifying to AMS, or where the process qpll the AMS spec.

First, the Department of Defense still considers the Mil-CE an active document for aluminum chromating. In that case, Class 3, is for “protection against corrosion where low electrical resistance is required” and you would spec Type I 811706 “Compositions containing hexavalent chromium” or Type 2 qpll “Compositions containing qpl 81706 hexavalent chromium” which would be the new TCP formulations.

Hey, at least they upped the revision qpl 81706 I hope that someone can help us out.

Joseph, Probably the answer you are looking for is from Lee Gearhart up near the top of the page from