I'd suggest asking Berkshire - but I see that might be a problem.

This page mentions AN-QQ-W-429, WIRE; STEEL, HIGH-STRENGTH, ZINC-COATED, 1938 Edition, December 12, 1938, so the right age.

Suggests AN-L-25, but that seems to be a lamp spec, so dead end there. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_nam...

Found something about it, but not a full answer.

Its in Google Books link here https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=V_Y1AQAAIAAJ&a...
its about Page 160 & 238 if you down load the PDF.

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=eb1cea46-7871-4e81-90fa-1

If you visit http://everyspec.com/ and search for "QQ-W" you will find a lot of specs with numbers near -429, but not -429 itself.

The "W" seems to mean "wire".

However you might find some leads as to what organization inherited these wire specs when the Federal Specs were abandoned.

You could also reach out to:

https://www.glennhcurtissmuseum.org/

https://oldrhinebeck.org/

https://ingeniumcanada.org/aviation

This indexes AN-QQ-W-492 to 44A2, whatever that is: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

3D Dave,
Ok I will come clean, this is for a Schweizer 1-19 and I know that you restored and used to own one at Blairstown, what I am after, Is the tensile strength and ductility of this wire, Is there any chance you kept a bit of that wire? Or knew the spec for an equivalent?
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

Not owned any plane that I could not lift with one hand, much less a Schweizer.

Maybe this will be helpful (attach), it lists the tensile strength.

found here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Drafting_Room...


edit: I see now that this was already posted above... disregard..

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=811e4284-375f-4ef1-a2d7-0

erik3000,
Where did you find that in that book? Can you tell me what page? I have been digging through that book for 2 days now. Is it on one of the backwards facing pages? I must have skipped right over it.

B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Metallic_Ma...

Metallic Materials Specification Handbook - Page 342 Gives an UTS = 1830 guess its MPa (265 ksi), not sure how that ties to the other strength range given.

Possibly these guys may hold a copy (they seem pretty cheap by tech pub standards).
https://aircorpslibrary.com

Another place to reach out: https://www.soaringmuseum.org/

Very possible that somewhere there knows where all the original Schweizer documents are.

Mint Julep,
The national soaring museum is one place we already looked, also the Smithsonian, we have also been in contact with K&L aircraft now run by Kyle Sweitzer who has all of the manufacturing rights to the Sweitzer line of Gliders and Sailplanes, they are now also the source for all spare parts for Sweitzer gliders ( Except this one.), as of this date we now have the tensile strength of the material, I still do not know what the material is except that it is a 1000 series carbon steel and apparently a cold drawn unannealed wire, close to piano wire.
I have three aircraft in that museum that I either helped build or assisted in repair or refurbishment, and one of them The C70 is where my handle comes from.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

For the application I can't imagine a modern, even much stronger, wire to be a technical problem.

If loads have reached yield of the original then things are already very bad I'd think.

However I understand the analysis and paperwork would be a challenge to support this.

Are you planning to restore this aircraft to flying condition, or just display?

Mint Julep,
That is the major crux of this problem, the aircraft is being restored to flying condition.
If it was for display I would just put bicycle spokes in there and call it good enough, they are about the same strength and have a threaded with a nut for adjustment.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

IF the wire spec is call out on the fly baby, have you tried asking Ron Wanttaja, he seems to be Mr Fly Baby, I know he hangs out on www.homebuiltairplanes.com/ his handle is "Wanttaja"

The Schweizer 2-22 looks to share a lot of design features with the 1-19. Designed and built in the same general time period.

Does K&L have info or parts for the 2-22?

DANG this is an A**-kicker. for what this is worth...

QQ-W-428 WIRE, STEEL, HIGH CARBON, ROUND, UNCOATED FOR MECHANICAL SPRINGS, (GENERAL PURPOSE) [available, non-current] appears to have similarity with QQ-W-429... except for the finish.

Also...
AMS-QQ-W-428/1 Wire, Steel, High Carbon, Round, Type I [NC] replaced by ASTM A229 Standard Specification for Steel Wire, Quenched and Tempered for
Mechanical Springs
and...
AMS-QQ-W-428/2 Wire, Steel, High Carbon, Round, Type III [NC] replaced by ASTM A227 Standard Specification for Steel Wire, Cold-Drawn for Mechanical
Springs

I even checked ANC-5a Circa 1949... no-go.

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]

Mint Julep,
The 2-22 uses a single spar D tube construction, a completely different design. And yes K&L has 90% of the parts and 100% of the drawings for all 5 models of the 2-22 before it was superseded by the 2-33.
WKTaylor (Aeronautics)14 May 21 21:13 said it right.
"DANG this is an A**-kicker. for what this is worth...." So as of today we have circled all around this thing we have specs that are close but nowhere do I see a notation that AN-00-W-429 has been superseded by any spec except AN L25 which has a note that it too has been superseded. So it would appear that QQ- W-429 is a continuation spec for AN 00-W-429. But nowhere can I find any notation linking the two.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

I think the 00/OO is a typo of QQ and not a separate specification. Are there any other AN-00 / AN-OO specifications?

Quote (3DDave)

Are there any other AN-00 / AN-OO specifications?

If you dig into the 1930's specifications they use other letters where we would expect QQ.



Probably not helpful but ...
I am wondering if the wire strength is actually the same as the stainless wires, I say this because

• makes sense if one is marketing a cheaper alternative, which i guess it was (might also mean there was a patent for it)
• nominal section max allowable stress appears higher than the stainless wire nominal stresses
• looking in my copy of Niles & Newell (Vol 1, 2nd ed, pub 193?) at wires and cables strength table, the only strength they have listed is for hard wires plus the usual flexible cable data (so either it likely wire was uncommon or interchangeable).

Also for the pack rats there is ANC5 1940ed here, nothing useful to this discussion unfortunately
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm


Anybody check a copy of a 1930's edition of KD Wood

ASTM A228

potential clue (from QQ-W-412):




Checking 465a, the properties listed for Class B align perfectly with the properties listed for QQ-W-429 in my previous post above (209-308ksi). This leads me to believe 429 was intended to superseded 465a Class B, but was shortly obsoleted. The cancellation notice for 465a says that it was superseded by 428, but doesn't mention the omission of the zinc coated Class B

Berkshire... I'm kinda dense this morning...

One unasked question is killing me... 'exactly why is the raw wire spec so important?"... IE: what is the ultimate purpose of the wire...

Hinge/shear pin?
Tie-Rod for wire bracing?
Push-pull rods,
Antique Technical conformity-to-spec...
etc...

I can point you to commercially available aircraft tie-rods and bracing rods/parts for structural bracing [round-square-streamlined], push-pull and bracing in carbon steel and drawn CRES... if needed.

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]

WKTaylor,
In this case it is," Antique Technical conformity-to-spec..". The usage in this instance is the diagonal bracing wire between the spar posts on a two spar wing inside the wing .As you say there are several tie rods and diagonals commercially available that could be used, but in this case the Glider is being restored to museum quality flying status. I and several friends have been searching for several months and keep going round in circles on this one. Coming to Eng Tips was pretty much a last result with pretty much the same results .The AN-00-W-429 spec appeared for several years, then showed up as superceded by AN-L-25 which in turn shows up as superceded . But with no clue as by what. At some point we are going to have to give up on this and select an un annealed cold drawn wire of the same tensile strength ( Possibly 428.), to make the wire bracing.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.